The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
LubricantSanta
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

There is no evidence for Noah's flood story

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...
LubricantSanta
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 613 times Debate No: 60379
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

While I do believe in Noah's flood narrative, I don't believe that it was meant to be proven as fact. After looking at how science and history works, no credible evidence has been given to support it. If you can show me evidence that is credible, I will declare you the winner of this debate.

First round acceptance
LubricantSanta

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

I looked at the discoveries of Noah's flood story and we must find the following :

1) The flood

2) Noah and his family

3) the Ark

4) the animals

When I look at the discoveries, they either have only pictures or are treasure hunting which is considered pseudscience. Real scientific evidence would demand that everyone can study and date the story to its proper time period.

Looking forward to next round
LubricantSanta

Con

http://www.sunnyskyz.com...-
This article talks about how a mass of petrified wood was found in Turkish mountains in the shape of a boat. Not only is the in the correct hypothetical mountain range, and the correct measurement that the old testament indicates, they also found petrified animal feces and antlers. What other evidence do I really need?
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

In order for a discovery to be legitimate, a date must be assigned to the artifacts (1). I asked Ron Wyatt's team for the method of dating of his artifacts and the progress of it, he said it has yet to be dated. He also had a reputation for pseudoarchaelogy (2). With that in mind, i cannot seem to trust his discovery because of the lack of sufficient evidence.

Sources:

1. http://science.howstuffworks.com...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
LubricantSanta

Con

http://www.foxnews.com...

The same structure I talked about earlier carbon dates around 5,000 years, roughly the time you would except it to date (at least as most assume). I don't know what else I can do other than provide all of this solid evidence if you won't listen to it.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

This one is a different Ark. This isn't the same one found by Ron Wyatt's team. Plus, Noah himself was never found. There's alot going wrong with these discoveries.
LubricantSanta

Con

LubricantSanta forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Truth_seeker

Pro

If you can provide evidence supporting:

1) The flood

2) Noah and his family

3) the Ark

4) the animals

And also being authenticated by Archaeology and history, being dated to its appropriate time period, you win the debate, but if not, i have fulfilled my position.
LubricantSanta

Con

LubricantSanta forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
Why is truth-seeker, a Christian, arguing against a Christian story?
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
@Boesball
You probably heard all your arguments from young earth creationists. They may sound very convincing to you. If they are so convincing, one would expect many more scientists to be convinced, but they are not. There's a reason for that; namely, there are rational, testable, and observable natural processes that explain many of the evidences used by flood geologists.
Many Young Earth Creationist evidences are flat out laughable. The institute for creation research actually has a page dedicated to outdated YEC arguments which they claim shouldn't be used anymore.
Don't get me wrong. I believe the Bible. I'm a man of faith, but I do my best to avoid blind faith.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
@AlternativeDavid
I seriously doubt you would convert if a Bible story could be proven true. There are a few stories we have yet to find evidence of, but a very large portion of them there is evidence for. The Bible is considered to be a historical document by many modern historians.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
You all might be interested in my debate:
http://www.debate.org...
The argument assumes the Genesis account is historical and accurate, but I argue that it was a local flood instead of a global one. I have presented evidence showing that the narrative found in the Genesis account meets geological models of a local flood in the area. Additionally, there is evidence in the area of a catastrophic flood, even though flooding in that area would be expected to be uncommon by geological models. Furthermore, to satisfy the religious crowd, I have shown that it is reasonable to interpret the Hebrew to mean only the local area given the precedent for it set in the rest of the scriptures.
Posted by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
@Boesball

DDO members generally vote against religious people because their arguments are usually nothing but bible verses. Present us with proof that the flood happened and you will convert me instantly.
Posted by ThinkingPunk 2 years ago
ThinkingPunk
Even if it is poor evidence, doesn't the bible technically count as evidence? Especially to someone like Truth_seeker? Just an idea for Con.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
@Boesball HAHAHA no there is not.
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
Wanna accept?
Posted by Boesball 2 years ago
Boesball
Whoever accepts this will lose this debate because of how the Debate.org voters generally vote in these issues, but there is a huge amount of evidence for the Biblical flood in fossil records, canyons, and others.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
Anyone foolish enough to believe the Noah's flood narrative should go try and build an arc the same dimensions as Noah did, using only the resources Noah would have had. Then you should get two/seven of every animal that Noah would have had to gather onto the arc using only the same resources Noah would have had. If you can do this in the time frame Noah did (80 years?), then I will give it slightly more than 0% chance of ever happening.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
Truth_seekerLubricantSantaTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro asserted the fact that no evidence for Noah's flood story exists. Logically speaking, the BoP lies on the person asserting a fact. Pro did not provide evidence that Noah's flood never occurred. Con provided evidence for Noah's flood. Regardless of how questionable the evidence may be, it still stands that evidence was provided. Therefore I could not walk away from this debate claiming that no evidence exists. Has the topic been, "Noah's flood is plausible" and Truth_seeker had taken the Con position, I would have voted in favor of Truth_seeker instead. I really wish I could vote for Truth_seeker on this debate, but the way I understand logical statements, I have trouble denying that Con deserves the points.