The Instigator
tyler_huebert
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Was Noahs flood real?

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...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,029 times Debate No: 67248
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

tyler_huebert

Pro

Some people, such as Athiest or Evolutionist, will say that Noah's flood never existed. They say it could never happen because there is not enough water to make a global flood or the Earth would have changed. I am going to show you why I believe it did happen and that there is a God that you will stand before when you die and you will either go to Heaven or Hell.
Wylted

Con

Sure, what the hell. Go for it.
Debate Round No. 1
tyler_huebert

Pro

Well, if there was a flood the Earth wouldve changed, wouldn't it have? The Earth did change. Before the flood the Bible says people lived for hundred of years, maybe 5 or 6 hundred years. After the flood we see in the Bible that people only lived for 100 years. How did Noah get all the animals? Well at this time all of the different continents were connected to make one big continent. Even EVolutionists and scientists will say that is true. So, therefore all the animals were in on one big continent making it easier to get all the animal species. There have been sea shell fossils reported on the top of the highest mountians. How did they get there? THeres only one way and the was the flood. The Bible also says the flood lasted around 377 days, longer than a local flood. Investigation shows that mammoths did not freeze but they drowned of choked on water.
Wylted

Con

Wylted forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tyler_huebert

Pro

tyler_huebert forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

My opponent has BOP and has used U conformance bible stories and wild assertions that mammoth's drowned without any supporting evidence. That sentence should be enough to negate my opponents case and give me the win.

Why Noah's flood couldn't have happened.

1. Not enough water on the planet to flood it.

2. The ark not big enough to hold 2 of every animal.

3. The staff aboard the ark couldn't have possibly specialized in dealing with that many animals and have all those unique types of food.

4. 2 of each species isn't enough genetic diversity for the animals to reproduce indefinitely.

Besides that evidence check this quote out.
A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]"

http://www.talkorigins.org...
"
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by angiec24 2 years ago
angiec24
The Bible is not a scientific text, so it should not be referenced when making a factual or scientific argument. We already know what the Bible says about the flood, but what does science say? If a flood of that magnitude did happen, there would be evidence of it. In addition, even some religious experts will concede that the Bible is meant to be taken as life lessons and parables, not as historical record.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Crap, didn't mean to forfeit
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
To Pro,

"Well, if there was a flood the Earth wouldve changed, wouldn't it have? The Earth did change. Before the flood the Bible says people lived for hundred of years, maybe 5 or 6 hundred years. After the flood we see in the Bible that people only lived for 100 years."

Your F___ kidding me, you must be, a flood will never determine the life span a person could live. What your saying is the flood water is Magical?? Pssstt, were talking about reality here, meaning basis in historical fact and in the bounds of reality.

"How did Noah get all the animals? Well at this time all of the different continents were connected to make one big continent. Even EVolutionists and scientists will say that is true. So, therefore all the animals were in on one big continent making it easier to get all the animal species."

First of all human species was not even developed like at all, the species that existed around the super continent were vastly different. To a point I doubt a mythical boat could even fit some of them, or even dare to attempt placing them on said boat.

"There have been sea shell fossils reported on the top of the highest mountians. How did they get there? THeres only one way and the was the flood. The Bible also says the flood lasted around 377 days, longer than a local flood. Investigation shows that mammoths did not freeze but they drowned of choked on water."

Tectonic plates is the answer to the shell issue. Also the bible is a plagiarized work of art, nothing is original at all it all based on old stories from past and replaced with new names. As for mammoths drowning I have found no such article the shows such evidence besides a baby mammoth who fell into a lake and got mud lodged in its mouth it dead after suffocating.

Remember your the one for Noah's flood being real therefor evidence from fossil record or something besides "its in the bible" will be nice.
Posted by BDPershing 2 years ago
BDPershing
"The Bible never says when the flood happened so the flood could have caused the civilizations to go under water."
If the earth is no more than 10k years old a flood must not happen at 12,450.

"The Bible states that the world was created around 6,000-10,000 years ago... and Noah's Ark was from the Bible..."

"The Mesopotamian flood stories concern the epics of Ziusudra, Gilgamesh, and Atrahasis."

"texts such as the Satapatha Brahmana mention the puranic story of a great flood,[5] wherein the Matsya Avatar of Vishnu warns the first man, Manu, of the impending flood, and also advises him to build a giant boat."

"In Plato's Timaeus, Timaeus says that because the Bronze race of Humans had been making wars constantly Zeus was angered and decided to punish humanity by a flood. Prometheus the Titan knew of this and told the secret to Deucalion, advising him to build an ark in order to be saved. After 9 nights and days the water started receding and the ark was landed at Mount Parnassus.[10]"

"The tale of Tiddalik the Frog is a legend from Australian Aboriginal mythology."

The flood story is obviously plagiarized, or simply taken and rewritten to fit the writers story.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
The Bible states that the world was created around 6,000-10,000 years ago... and Noah's Ark was from the Bible...
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I don't eat off tectonic plates. Too fancy for me. I just use paper plates.
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
TheNamesFizzy
Wow, those arguments... Did you ever take Earth Science? "how did the seashells get on top of these mountains?" Tectonic plates...
Posted by tyler_huebert 2 years ago
tyler_huebert
I never said it was 6,000 years ago...
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Wait, so 6,000 years ago, the earth was one big continent? This is known as Pangea, and it existed dozens of MILLIONS of years ago...
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Ty, it usually takes a day and a half to formulate an argument...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
tyler_huebertWyltedTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not substantiate the claims made in the Bible with evidence, whilst Con substantiated his counter-claims with sources. Arguments and sources to Con. Conduct is even because both sides forfeited n equal amount of times.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
tyler_huebertWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both forfeited a round, thus this balances out. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to present any supporting evidence to further validate his claims. Con came in at the last round and not only provided rebuttals debunking most of Pro's arguments, but also provided evidence which further supported his side. For this, Con wins both sources and argument points.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
tyler_huebertWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Hands down win for Con.Pro did not provide a single credible source and logic debunked it.
Vote Placed by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
tyler_huebertWyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con adequately refuted all of Pro's contentions, and both sides forfeited once. Pro was unfortunately given no time to rebut any of Con's points, which left the debate squarely in Wylted's hands. Pro only made one argument that can be interpreted as necessitating the flood, whilstcon made several arguments that were inherently more convincing. Pro's only relevant claim was unsourced.