The Instigator
Conservative101
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
IceHawk2009
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

There is Proof of Noah's Ark

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 4 votes the winner is...
Conservative101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 727 times Debate No: 46648
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

Conservative101

Pro

I will be arguing/providing evidence that Noah's Ark does exist, my opponent will be arguing that Noah's Ark does not exist.

I will be providing evidence that, according to the Bible:
-There is a structure measured "three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits" -Genesis 6:15
-There is a structure "with lower, second, and third stories" -Genesis 6:16
-There is a structure located "upon the mountains of Ararat" -Genesis 8:4

Good luck.
IceHawk2009

Con

I did not realize that I only had 500 characters so I shortened my arguments a little and took my sources out. So without further to do my top 5 arguments.

1) The bible is not an accurate source of history.
2) It is a mathematical impossibly for the diversity of species that exist today came from the flood.
3) With how big and with it being made of wood the ark would have sank.
4) There is no geological evidence of a flood.
5) Disease would have killed all of the animals.
Debate Round No. 1
Conservative101

Pro

The following sources provide evidence of Noah's Ark:

Proof: http://www.sunnyskyz.com...-

-Exact measurements (300x50 Egyptian cubits)
-Exact location (Arabian Mountains)
-Exact amount of stories high (3)
All of these are stated in the Bible

Even more Proof: http://www.foxnews.com...

I have provided evidence of the Ark, thus I cannot lose.
IceHawk2009

Con

My opponent has failed to answer as to why there is no geological proof of a world wide flood, he has not answered as to how the animals did not die from illness, he has not proven the bible as a historical source, He did not answer as to how the ark would have floated. There is no proof behind the ark.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
I can't believe there is actually a debate on whether a giant boat built by only 8 people in some mythical story where thousands of animals were transported across the sea. This is pathetic. Creationism is by far the stupidest most backwards theory to ever believe in. For christ's sake, in my own catholic school they even teach us it didn't happen.
Posted by steffon66 2 years ago
steffon66
i was under the impression that you could not repopulate the world with only 1 male and 1 female because of insest. i heard on a documentery that you would have to have at least 14 animals of a species to repopulate the world and if you didnt the animals would be screwed up because they would be born from their uncle and aunt etc. cant believe noone thinks it is implausible that the entire world was repopulated with only two animals of each species.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
It's funny how the Creationists (I cited a creation site in my previous post) who once heralded Ron Wyatt as a hero when he first published his so called mistaken discovery on Mt Ararat, but, once the Geological information that destroyed Ron Wyatt's claim of it being Noah's Ark completely, and now the Creationists distance themselves from Wyatt's claim, because it makes them look STUPID!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
That boat shaped formation was actually the result of a past landslide. Geologists all know this, there is no wood involved in it's formation: http://www.csun.edu...
Ron Wyatt was never a Geologist, he was just a naive, deluded Clown.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 2 years ago
MoralityProfessor
I'm surprised no one has pointed out that the two sources Pro uses are in direct contradiction with each other. Firstly, the second one explicitly states that the ark was round, while the first one shows the more common type of boat, pointy bow, and a long vessel. Also, the second source seems to indicate the tablet found has to do with a Mesopotamian culture - not the bible, delegitimizing the proof for Noah and his ark. Misrepresentation of sources means I give points to Con.
500 characters might be difficult to work with, but I didn't see any determining points on either side.
Conduct to Con for staying within the character limit by not using links to make his arguments for him.
Posted by CrazyCowMan 2 years ago
CrazyCowMan
That's not proof, it's just an account. The photo isn't at all proof, it's just a mountain that's kinda boat shaped.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Conservative101IceHawk2009Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Hate to say this, but even though Pro is totally wrong in reality, as that structure is a result of a landslide and nothing to do with any boat, Pro did provide a more convincing argument and Con barely even tried to counter Pro's non-evidence. Pro has many sources he could have cited, like one I provided in the Comments section which destroyed the Mt. Ararat (Uratu) rock formation (not wood).
Vote Placed by IslamAhmadiyya 2 years ago
IslamAhmadiyya
Conservative101IceHawk2009Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though there were some mishaps with Pro's arguments, it still beats Con's arguments as Con ignores the actual debate and brings in irrelevant points. At least both had good spelling and grammar!
Vote Placed by MoralityProfessor 2 years ago
MoralityProfessor
Conservative101IceHawk2009Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
Conservative101IceHawk2009Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave arguments and sources for the existence of Noah's Ark. Con seemed to be arguing against the great flood, and not noah's ark. The resolution was "There is proof of Noah's Ark" not "There is proof of the great flood." Since Pro's arguments went unrefuted, he gets arguments and sources. But I would warn him that simply posting links to places that do the argument for you is kindof getting around the character limit, so I'm giving conduct to Con.