The Instigator
TheConservative
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Derek.Gunn
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

There is abundant proof the biblical "flood" was an actual event

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: 4/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,470 times Debate No: 3471
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (16)

 

TheConservative

Pro

Thank you Derek.Gunn since I never was able to finish this debate previously I thought we could start now.

1. Petrified Forest National Park

Due to the catastrophic nature of the global Flood, millions of trees were swept away by the raging waters. Some of these are now seen as coal deposits, others as peat bogs, and still others as petrified wood.

Probably the largest deposit of petrified wood is to be seen near Holbrook, Arizona. About 10,000 petrified trees are at this location

The evidence does not indicate that these trees grew in this area. They were transported here by current action. Further, it is evident that they were buried rapidly and catastrophically but not slowly and gradually. Dr. Dale Russell comments, "Clusters of stumps were buried upright, with some penetrating as much as 3 meters of overlying sediment -- in evidence of the rapidity with which sediments accumulated. (Dale A. Russell, An Odyssey In Time, The Dinosaurs of North America P.31)

In the past, one or more Indians built a shelter out of the various pieces of petrified wood.

The size of these petrified trees tell us much about the grandeur of the forest which grew in the world before the flood.

Present day erosion continues to reveal yet more petrified trees.

I ask my opponent to explain this to me under the assumption the flood did not exist.
Derek.Gunn

Con

It is estimated that the petrified trees of Petrified Forest National Park were last alive in the late Triassic period
~ 225,000,000 years ago.
Petrification involves the dissolving of iron and silica (glass) which then, over an immense amount of time replaces the wood's cellulose etc.
The trees of the Petrified Forest National Park were buried in volcanic ash (the source of silica, iron etc).

They could well have been transported there by water; the area is after all a large floodplain.

I don't believe this indicates the story of The Flood to be true because:
a) the Bible suggests The Flood took place within the last 10,000 years - not enough time for petrification
b) the dating of material, and the life held within it indicate the trees were laid down over 200,000,000 years ago
c) this floodplain's sedimentation is localised, not worldwide, as one would expect from a global flood
Debate Round No. 1
TheConservative

Pro

TheConservative forfeited this round.
Derek.Gunn

Con

It appears that TheConservative hasn't been able to post his argument.
Possibly he has misallocated his time.
Hopefully things will be better next round...
Debate Round No. 2
TheConservative

Pro

TheConservative forfeited this round.
Derek.Gunn

Con

Well, for some reason or another, "TheConservative" has been unable to present his arguments.
It's a bit of a pity because it appeared that he was going to argue from scientific evidence, which could have yielded somthing interesting.

Now his account has been cancelled... again.
Debate Round No. 3
TheConservative

Pro

TheConservative forfeited this round.
Derek.Gunn

Con

Sigh... and that's for another debate with "TheConservative/JLConservative".
Never mind, no shortage of other things to do.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
No that is not true, it absolutely happens on this planet earth. And not infrequently either. But if you wish to debate me on the subject, please do not refrain. http://www.icr.org...
Posted by tholos 8 years ago
tholos
InquireTruth, it may be true that under ideal chemical conditions petrifaction is possible in a few hundred years or even less, but these chemical conditions never take place on the planet earth.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
To say 10,000 years is not long enough for things to become petrified is simply wrong. Under ideal chemical conditions, petrifaction is possible in a few hundred years or even less. And the Bible also does not make any suggestion regarding how long ago the flood occurred. While some people believe the earth to have been created 6-10 thousand years ago, the evidence for that is simply nonexistent (they use errant genealogical steps to conclude the age). So that little arguing point was merely grasping at straws.
Posted by kgantchev 8 years ago
kgantchev
"WHY did the conservative get 2 votes when Derek.Gunn clearly refuted all of his points...?"

It looks like some people don't read at all, OR they're really biased... it's truly a shame.

BTW, please visit my profile and check out the debates I have done (especially the one about Religious books being the ONLY source of morality). It would be greatly appreciated if you cast your vote on my debates, my reciprocity is guaranteed.

Thanks! Great debate!
Posted by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
WHY did the conservative get 2 votes when Derek.Gunn clearly refuted all of his points...?
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
TheConservative is no longer on Debate.org
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by pollocklady 7 years ago
pollocklady
TheConservativeDerek.GunnTied
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 wheelhouse3 8 years ago
wheelhouse3
TheConservativeDerek.GunnTied
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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
TheConservativeDerek.GunnTied
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 bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
TheConservativeDerek.GunnTied
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 colbert4prez 8 years ago
colbert4prez
TheConservativeDerek.GunnTied
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 zigzag12 8 years ago
zigzag12
TheConservativeDerek.GunnTied
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 Lenfent 8 years ago
Lenfent
TheConservativeDerek.GunnTied
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 Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
TheConservativeDerek.GunnTied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
TheConservativeDerek.GunnTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
TheConservativeDerek.GunnTied
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