The Instigator
matt8800
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
the_banjo_sender
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The story of the Genesis flood completely discredits the Bible/Quran

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 355 times Debate No: 84343
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

matt8800

Pro

This is a reposting because a troll ruined the original debate. If you are not interested in respectful, intelligent discourse for the purpose of establishing truth, please do not accept the challenge.

I am taking the PRO position.

The story of Noah's flood states:
Noah was told by God to build a boat. Noah gathered up 2 of every species unto the boat. God caused a flood to cover the entire earth, which wiped out all living things that were not on the Noah's boat. The flood lasted for 30 days, after which the boat came to rest on Mt. Ararat. The human race and all animal species continued to live only as descendants of those saved on the boat.

1. I believe the story of Noah's flood as described in the Bible (and Quran) to be false. While there is a lack of evidence to support the story, there are too many logistical issues that would make it an impossible feat. For example, there is no plausible explanation as to how Noah could gather animals from other areas of the world that are separated from that continent (such as Kangaroos). Furthermore, there would be no food for the carnivores to eat.

2. Since it is claimed that the Bible is the direct word of God and infallible, all substantial claims must be correct or the book should be considered unreliable in whole.

CON is stating that either a) the flood did happen or b) it did not happen but the Bible is still "the word of God".
the_banjo_sender

Con

Pardon my ignorance, but from which source did you get your information on the Genesis Flood? See, many of your details are startlingly inaccurate according to the Biblical version. I shall address these issues in the order in which they were presented.

1.) Noah was told to collect 2 of the unclean species, but he was allowed to bring 7 of each of the clean species (Genesis 7:2). These extra animals were to be used not to repopulate the planet, but to make sacrifices to God and, presumably, to feed the carnivorous organisms.

2.) The flood actually lasted for 40 days (Genesis 8:6), but Noah and his family were on the ark for about one year (Genesis 8:13, using a little math from the previous verses).

3.) A lack of evidence is obvious. The same can be said for the Theory of Relativity and Evolution. Be this as it may, most people still consider these two theories as true.

4.) Noah did not have to obtain the animals, as they were led to him by God (Genesis 7:15).

Seeing as I have both corrected your faulty information and supported the side of the case which I have taken, I dare say my work here is finished.

Thank you all!

VFD
Debate Round No. 1
matt8800

Pro

You have not presented anything that has disproven the premise that the story of the flood completely discredits the Bible/Quran.



The points I was incorrect on are irrelevant to the argument.


If you choose to not debate, I can only assume that speaks to your level of confidence in your ability to debate this topic.


With that said, I stand corrected of the specifics of the story of the flood. I wasn’t very good at Sunday school :)




  1. Without accounting for the fact that many species had 7 pairs, there would have had to been 47,224 animals on the ark not including extinct species.




  2. There are 950,000 species of insects that could not survive without land. Many of those have to live in a colony to survive.




  3. Food and water storage would have been a logistical problem. A worldwide flood would be mostly saltwater. On top of that, there would be no place to dump the waste except overboard which would contaminate the water even if it was possible it was fresh water. Some religious leaders say there was suspended animation to explain the food/water shortage.




  4. It was never addressed how non-local animals got there and how they were returned after the flood and how their diets were addressed. Pandas and Koalas only eat bamboo and eucalyptus respectively. How did they get there and how they get back? There are no remains of foreign animals from other continents migrating back. Even if god helped get them there, would you argue that god magically transported them back? When? After they were in the ark for a year and ate all the food? Why not do it earlier before they ate all the food? There was no migration so it had to be instantaneous. Why not levitate them in a bubble above the flood waters in suspended animation until the proper food chain was restored? If God can do anything, why are these considered ridiculous questions? If you are guilty of thinking these questions were ridiculous, then its because you know it would never happen even if somebody claims that god did it.




  5. There would be no food after the flood. All vegetation rotted and died. There would be no animal populations to support carnivores and omnivores. No vegetation would be available until after there was a complete growing season which would be needed to kickstart the food chain. It would be many, many years until prey animals would be available in sufficient numbers.




  6. There are volumes of geological evidence that there was no worldwide flood. I would be happy to take the time to address it if you are intending on having an intelligent debate and try to present geological evidence to support your position.




If it comes down to magic, I cant prove it doesn’t exist and you can’t prove it does exist. Scientifically this is impossible – the real debate is magic. I would take the time to do the math on food and water storage, waste management, etc but it seems fruitless since believers think they can invoke a miracle whenever they paint themselves into an illogical corner.



My source is logical deduction and science.


Your source is a book about magic written by one guy out of thousands that have claimed that only they speak for god.

the_banjo_sender

Con

Ooh... that's brilliant, right there. Your points are actually very good, and it took quite the mulling-over for me to determine how to respond. Regardless, I have compiled some arguments that hopefully will support my case somewhat thoroughly.

First of all, let me say that I do not lack any confidence. I'm confident as the day is long! (sort of...)

This is slightly awkward, but I am going to use evolution to explain how all of the animals fit upon the ark. Now, I am not referring to Evolution (kindly see the comments), but the pastor at my church agrees that Noah did not take a pair of every species of dog, cat, cow, or bear. This also addresses some of the food issue, as Koalas and Pandas did not necessarily go on the ark.

Water shortage is hardly an issue, however. Remember that Noah was in an enormous rain storm for forty days. Chances are he had enough sense to collect some of the water for the animals and his family. Also, this is purely speculation, but since it was the rain that apparently flooded the Earth, and since rain is always fresh water, it is possible that the sea on which the ark sailed was in fact mostly fresh water.

See, the real problem here is a total lack of evidence. The flood story of the Bible takes up only three chapters, and it hardly focused on how the saving was done. Your claims are true that God could have caused suspended animation. This solves all of the issues you have provided.

It really comes down to this: I don't know. I believe the flood happened, yet the scientific evidence is scarce. I believe the Bible is true, even though I have no proof other then the change it makes in people's lives. Most "educated" people feel as though this is an ignorant or weak point of view, but, see, I don't really care. Besides, I didn't "paint myself into an illogical corner." That would be Moses, writing with the voice of God through the Holy Spirit. The only thing I can do it have faith. I believe the whole Bible to be true, so I believe the flood occurred, regardless of the hows.
Debate Round No. 2
matt8800

Pro


“This is slightly awkward, but I am going to use evolution to explain how all of the animals fit upon the ark. Now, I am not referring to Evolution (kindly see the comments), but the pastor at my church agrees that Noah did not take a pair of every species of dog, cat, cow, or bear. This also addresses some of the food issue, as Koalas and Pandas did not necessarily go on the ark.”

According to Genesis, Noah did take every species.

Genesis 7:1-5 “The LORD then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”
5 And Noah did all that the LORD commanded him.”

“Water shortage is hardly an issue, however. Remember that Noah was in an enormous rain storm for forty days. Chances are he had enough sense to collect some of the water for the animals and his family. Also, this is purely speculation, but since it was the rain that apparently flooded the Earth, and since rain is always fresh water, it is possible that the sea on which the ark sailed was in fact mostly fresh water.”
It would be extremely unlikely the flood water was potable due to the average salinity of all the water in liquid form on earth but I will concede to your point that it would be possible to collect water that came down.

“See, the real problem here is a total lack of evidence. The flood story of the Bible takes up only three chapters, and it hardly focused on how the saving was done. Your claims are true that God could have caused suspended animation. This solves all of the issues you have provided.”

It is true that there is a lack of evidence of the flood. As a matter of fact, the only evidence is a book written a long time ago by people none of us has ever met. How do we know its true? Because it says so. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence yet there is none.

“Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community. Source - https://en.wikipedia.org...

“It really comes down to this: I don't know. I believe the flood happened, yet the scientific evidence is scarce.”

To the contrary, there are mountains of evidence that a global flood as described in Genesis did not happen. I could provide reams upon reams of it.

“Most "educated" people feel as though this is an ignorant or weak point of view, but, see, I don't really care. Besides, I didn't "paint myself into an illogical corner." That would be Moses, writing with the voice of God through the Holy Spirit. The only thing I can do it have faith. I believe the whole Bible to be true, so I believe the flood occurred, regardless of the hows.”

My purpose for this argument is not to offend or attack. It is simply to encourage people to question what they have been told and what they believe. I used to be a Christian but the cracks of doubt kept expanding. Eventually I either needed to resolve what it would mean, who I would be and what my purpose would be if I were not a Christian or I needed to stop asking hard questions. I am a truth seeker so I cannot stop asking questions.

Science has no bias and does not prefer one theory or another.

Skepticism and science only strengthens the truth. Skepticism should always be encouraged. Why is faith in unconfirmed stories good?

I am not stating there is no God because I think there is evidence “something” is out there (I am planning another debate to show evidence of life after death). What I am stating is that the Bible is false and I reject the notion that it has a monopoly on God and morals.
the_banjo_sender

Con

Doubt is a funny thing. See, nowadays, it is considered good and upstanding to question everything, but back before the Scientific Revolution, doubt was, in many religions, a sin. Is doubt really a good thing?

Science is great. It unlocks large secrets about the universe to us. This being the case, science cannot explain everything. I used to enjoy playing a game where if someone told me something, I would ask why. They would respond and I would again ask why.This progressively continued until the person ran out of answers and therefore became very annoyed with me.

Everything has things that cannot be explained. Where did the stuff come from that supposedly created the Big Bang? How could a large flood have occurred without leaving behind any evidence? How are sausages made? A complete skeptic will believe in nothing, because no matter what, everything can be questioned. It is therefore obvious that something else is required to believe something.

Faith is the belief in something that is not always apparent. Skepticism is in direct conflict with faith, but through skepticism, faith can be increased. I don't know what all of you out in cyberania believe, but I can be stinking sure that you have to have a degree of faith to maintain your belief. If you think you're an exception, we'll take this into the comments section. My personal faith rests firmly on the Bible. Now, am I at times skeptic of what the Bible says? Obviously. But I have resigned to have faith in the fact that just because I don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't so.

Does the Bible have a monopoly upon morals? I think so. Why is it that most all of our morality is based off of ideas defined in the Bible? Naturally, we have laws that people in biblical times had no need of, but aren't all of our laws in place to prevent murder, stealing, lying, violence, abuse, and hate? Isn't our government established to help the poor and the needy? Any notion that morality is relative is absurd! How can any society run in a place where there is no designated right and wrong?

You are entitled to your beliefs, sir, but as I see it, there is no circumstance under which the Bible is either false or is not the rock upon which morality should be built.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by matt8800 1 year ago
matt8800
The scientific community rejects the notion of the Genesis flood. Here are a few examples as to why http://ncse.com...
Posted by be_diligent 1 year ago
be_diligent
be_diligent
Here are two scientific studies that lend credence to the biblical account of Noah's flood.

https://www.youtube.com......

https://www.newscientist.com......

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Posted by be_diligent 1 year ago
be_diligent
I just wanted to say that there are historic records of a great flood. Almost all ancient civilizations have recorded it.

http://nwcreation.net...

There are also scientific studies that show that in examining the different levels of strata made of sedimentary rock, (rocks laid down by water) that there is a time frame where this happened in a very short amount time. Not hundreds of thousands of years.

If you look into some of the things that have been found in the strata, you will see that in many cases, there are trees that are vertical within the layers. Which means that the tree would have had to remain standing for hundreds of thousands of years while the sedimentary formed.. The odds of that happening are fall less than an actual world wide flood.!

http://www.grisda.org...

The link is to the oldest petrified forest on earth, with photos of trees standing in the sedimentary rocks.

There are many similarities in the Hebrew text and records discovered on stone in other parts of the world that offer more proof that a mass flood did occur. At that time the people did not have communications or travel in order to spread some "myth. That in itself is very convincing that a massive flood did indeed take place.
Posted by ssadi 1 year ago
ssadi
I will vote :)
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Your thinking of micro and macro. There is no difference between if you capitalize the letters lol.

But you think a god just going POOF there it is.....is not unreasonable at all.

Lol
Posted by the_banjo_sender 1 year ago
the_banjo_sender
Not a troll at all, my good fellow. And really, you aught to use more standard grammar, because otherwise I cannot tell whether you mean evolution or Evolution, the first being a reasonable belief that small changes are made in a population due to natural selection or other causes, the second being the slightly outrageous claim that multiple varied species randomly jumped into existence from an original parent DNA.

However, Reformist, if you truly want to discuss this, why don't you meet me in the debate rounds, hmm?
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Did Con really just say there is a lack of evidence for evolution

Are you kidding me?

This guy is a obvious troll
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
There are flood myths in many religions and cultures around the world. Some scholars believe that these myths have some basis in fact from flash floods, tsunamis or glacial dams breaking. All these myths have a thread that a god was angry with man's ways.
No votes have been placed for this debate.