The Instigator
bfitz1307
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
acetraveler
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The story of the flood and Noah's ark is a fairy tale.

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  
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: 7/12/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,795 times Debate No: 4662
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (10)

 

bfitz1307

Pro

It is my belief that the story of the great flood, and of Noah and his ark is a myth. I will be arguing against a literal understanding of the story. My argument is as follows:

1. The ark could not have been built and made sea worthy
2. The animals could not have been gathered nor survived on the ark
3. He could not have cared for them; fed, watered, sanitation, exercise
4. Where did the water come from? Where did it go?
5. The bible says the water covered the highest peak with 15 cubits of water, Everest is 29,029 feet but the animals and Noah couldn't have survived at that altitude for that long
6. No evidence of the flood, other civilizations were around at the time and apparently survived it
7. How did plants survive
8. How did disease survive the flood
9. What did animals eat after they left the ark
10. How did humans repopulate the earth so quickly
11. Why didn't this devastating flood destroy ancient Egyptian pyramids

I believe this is sufficient, for now. I will anxiously be awaiting a fellow debater. To he/she who debates me; Thank you for reading and accepting the debate, and good luck!
acetraveler

Con

Of course myth is a myth. So we should not literally believe 'The story of the flood and Noah's ark' in the bible. But, I can show you this story is based on real big flood in the past time. Everyone(include bfitz1307), if you read this book named 'The Long Summer : How Climate Changed Civilization' by Brian Fagan(I refer to Korean version and I show you this link : http://www.islandnet.com...), you can find The great flood(B.C. 10000 ~ B. C. 4000) in the contents of a book. Next, if you open the page 155 ~ 190(Caution! : I refer to Korean version. So if you refer to these book, you should predict the page in the original version is little different than my introduction.)

Frankly, I don't know how to explain this great flood because this translation from Korean to English too hard to work. I show you detail explanation next round.
Of course, This great flood was not big as the description of the Bible, but the water in the Mediterranean Sea had flooded so the Black Sea made by rising 150m. In addition, this flood continue 2 years. In the past time, people are much less than current time and people live together near sea and water, the people could easily think the great flood are disaster from god. I have an idea how oppose your opinion in my brain, but I cannot show you detail yet..................(cite from : 'The Long Summer : How Climate Changed Civilization' page 166 ~176, refer to Korean version)

I'll promise you I show you detail explain and powerful oppose next round!
Debate Round No. 1
bfitz1307

Pro

I'm not sure what more I need to argue considering I said I would be arguing that the story is a myth, and the first sentence of acetraveler's "rebuttal" was "Of course it's a myth." I was hoping for a bit more of a fight.
acetraveler

Con

Of course, these two guys. I did not think I can prove the story of the flood and Noah's ark in a bible is a real story. As you have mentioned before, the atmosphere on earth have no sufficient water vapors that can flood in the description of the bible. And, you had also exactly pointed out lives in the ark cannot exist like the description of the bible. Although someone really believe this, do you really think he or she can have the possibility to prove that is a real story scientifically? In this situation, I don't want to leave someone lose this debate in this unequal condition, and I don't have the right to lie against my conscience although I want to win this debate. But I want to tell you more important message, so I participate this debate. 'The story of the flood and Noah's ark is a tale that are based on a real situation unlike most of other fairly tales. And, this myth can be the best way for the past people to tell the truth related to the disaster. So, if we simply accept 'The story of the flood and Noah's ark is a fairly tale.', we can miss the real message from the past. This is my intention to say. Then, I show you more detail explanation of the real drought in the past related to the story of the Bible. (Cite from : http://www.bookdepository.co.uk...)

'A critical solitary event happened around 6200 BCE with the implosion of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. The cascade of fresh water into the North Atlantic created drought conditions throughout Europe and the eastern Mediterranean while raising ocean levels. This rise later led to a catastrophe when the Mediterranean found an outlet to the Euxine Lake. The inflow created the Black Sea, driving people west into the Danube Valley and changing human society in the area drastically. Continuing fluctuations brought further challenges to increasing populations. Stable food supplies provided by agriculture reduced mobility and fed population growth. The cost was people tied to the land and a new vulnerability to climate change.'

The story of bible can based on this real situation. Although still it is a assumption by researchers, but I think the relation can be proved in the predictable future, and I can tell you the story in the bible is not just a fairly tale that the past people had an intention to lie. I show you detail explanation related to your opinion in round 1 to my final round.
Win or lose in this debate, do as you wish!

1. The ark could not have been built and made sea worthy
2. The animals could not have been gathered nor survived on the ark
3. He could not have cared for them; fed, watered, sanitation, exercise
4. Where did the water come from? Where did it go?
5. The bible says the water covered the highest peak with 15 cubits of water, Everest is 29,029 feet but the animals and Noah couldn't have survived at that altitude for that long
6. No evidence of the flood, other civilizations were around at the time and apparently survived it
7. How did plants survive
8. How did disease survive the flood
9. What did animals eat after they left the ark
10. How did humans repopulate the earth so quickly
11. Why didn't this devastating flood destroy ancient Egyptian pyramids
Debate Round No. 2
bfitz1307

Pro

Nothing more to say. I will repost for anyone who wants to debate the actual topic and not propose something else.
acetraveler

Con

acetraveler forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Cg09 8 years ago
Cg09
Yea the Con was um in a word pathetic, but Pro there is actual physical evidence of the Ark on Earth and scientific evidence of a global flood.
Posted by bfitz1307 8 years ago
bfitz1307
Yes I agree, not much of a debate if you ask me.
Posted by Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
Well in saying "Of course myth is a myth." In my opinion CON loses immediately, just in the very first line he's agreed with the resolution, and totally compromised his CON status.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
bfitz1307acetravelerTied
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 bfitz1307 8 years ago
bfitz1307
bfitz1307acetravelerTied
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 The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
bfitz1307acetravelerTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by B2BCHAOS 8 years ago
B2BCHAOS
bfitz1307acetravelerTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
bfitz1307acetravelerTied
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 
Vote Placed by currie_jean 8 years ago
currie_jean
bfitz1307acetravelerTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
bfitz1307acetravelerTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Cooperman88 8 years ago
Cooperman88
bfitz1307acetravelerTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
bfitz1307acetravelerTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
bfitz1307acetravelerTied
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:30