Points: 2

Resolved: Scientific, historic, and metaphysical evidence indicates the Biblical Noah's Flood could have, and did happened on Earth.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
oromagi
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Contender
Points: 7
Description
Note that we can use both scientific AND historic evidence, as well as some metaphysical argumentation.
R1-Argument (Constructive with no responses to my case.)
R2-Rebuttal (Respond to my case, but NOT my Rebuttal)
R3-Defense/closing thoughts and conclusions (Respond to my Rebuttal, but you cannot comment on my Defense.)
Rules are simple
1.No Insults or Personal Attacks
2.No Forfeits
3.No Kritiks
4.No New arguments made in final round
5.No trolling
6.No getting off topic
7.No waiving
8.You must follow the Debate Structure
9.You can not agree with my stance
10.No swears
11.No offensive words
12.No Plagiarism
**ANY violation of these rules merits a loss**
Good luck and have fun!
Round 1
Published:
I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Hopefully we maintain civil discourse throughout. 

The full resolution is “Resolved: Scientific, historic, and metaphysical evidence indicates the Biblical Noah's Flood could have, and did happened on Earth.”
As such, I must support the claims that, firstly, evidence suggests Noah’s Flood could have happened in the Biblical sense, and secondly, that evidence suggests that Noah’s Flood did happen in the Biblical sense.

My opponent must refute one or both of these claims. (This may appear to put me at an inherent disadvantage, but the claims are so interdependent it really does not matter.)

Therefore, the thesis of my constructive will be that 
  1. Metaphysical and scientific evidence suggests the Flood was possible.
  2. Noah could have built the Ark and sustained himself and his family, along with all the different “kinds” of animals during the Flood.
  3. Scientific and historical evidence suggests the Flood did happen in accordance to the previously established theories.

Contention 1: Possibilities, Possibilities.

The Flood:

Metaphysical possibilities:

This may seem to be given, but a God who created the laws of nature, the universe and everything in it has the sole privilege of intervening in the world of His creation in supernatural ways. The existence of such a God is a prerequisite to the occurrence of the Flood outlined in the Bible. The blast of waters from the deep was not spontaneous natural phenomena, nor was the downpour of rain. Indeed, a flood of this size and scope was the product of a chain of natural disaster that all had its roots in a God.

So, how do we prove or disprove the existence of such a God?
I would argue that since the Biblical Flood needed such a divine source as God, if we prove that the evidence points to a flood of this size and scope having happened in relatively recent Earth past it is only reasonable to assume that such a God exists. This way, we derive both the possibility of a Flood and verification of that possibility from pairing the metaphysical and scientific/historical.
In other words, the abstract provides basis for the concrete, while the concrete confirms the abstract.
The nature of the abstract is irrelevant so long as it provides basis.
For example, I can say that God is a lesbian circus-performer who is not omniscient but has enough homo-power to cause a global flood if she feels like it.While ridiculous, this still provides enough basis for the concrete. For this debate, I will be assuming the Bible happens to be the accurate depiction. However, even if this gets disproven it must be remembered that the heart of this discussion is not the letter-to-letter accuracy of the Bible, instead: whether a Global Flood was originated by a divine being we call God, who spared a man and one of each “kind” of animal to repopulate the Earth.

Scientific possibilities:

We see a world in which it appears that at one point, everything was joined in Pangaea, but now everything is drifting apart. We see a world where there is evidence of past extraterrestrial impact. We see a world where a multitude of deep-dwelling fossils of various now-extinct creatures exist.
Many point to these facts and say that these all indicate a lost 4.5 billion year history of the Earth. 
But that is just one interpretation. There are many practical ways God could have initiated the Flood that makes sense when viewing the world as we see it today. 
The theory that best fits the evidence at our disposal is Impact Theory.
This theory outlines that meteors impacted into the Earth 4,300 years ago (directed by God), causing some of the craters we see today and providing a mechanism to break apart the continents and initiate a continental “sprint” to their present positions. This continental sprint would no doubt produce huge amounts of rainfall and jet streams, along with huge tsunamis the initial impacts of the meteors made! Everything was enveloped and rapidly buried with sediments, creating the fossil remnants we know now. 
G. E. Williams gives one example of an impact powerful enough to trigger the Flood.
"The 56-mile wide Acraman impact crater in South Australia, which supposedly resulted from a 2.5-mile-wide asteroid that slammed into Earth. The explosion would have been equivalent to the detonation of 50,000–100,000 hydrogen bombs at once! (1)"
Most of Earth’s craters could be pinned to the Flood, and thus give a mechanism by which to explain it. 
During the initial impacts and tsunamis of the meteors, the crust of Pangaea split, and our modern continents drifted away at lightning speed. 
To cite an article by Roger Patterson (2), who puts it perfectly: 
“This may seem like a radical claim, but computer modeling has demonstrated the feasibility of this model. Dr. John Baumgardner, with the cooperation of others, has used this world-class computer modeling to show how the subduction (sinking into the mantle) of the ocean floor could have happened at a runaway pace. As the region of cold ocean crust near the continents began to sink into the mantle, it pulled the rest of the seafloor with it just like a conveyor belt. New magma rose up replacing the old along what are the mid-ocean ridges today. In just a matter of weeks, the continental plates could have separated and settled near their present positions.”
To close this point: a Flood of the scale of the Bible is entirely possible, and it can produce our modern world in the Creationist time-frame. 

Noah:

Like the last point, there will be two parts to this one. First, I will illustrate how Noah could have created the Ark. Next, I will illustrate how the Ark could have easily accommodated both him and his family during the Flood.

Building:

According to the Bible, Noah was hundreds of years old when the Ark was finalized and the Flood began. The Ark obviously would not have taken up all of his 600 year lifespan until that point. This means that Noah had literally hundreds of years of experience in craftsmanship to work with, along with the help of his three sons and his grandfather Methuselah, and father Lamech who were alive at the time. 
This experience, paired with the necessary, God-given information to complete the task (size, layout, and appropriate building materials) leads Christian scholars to believe that it was indeed very much possible for Noah to build the Ark, especially under the guidance and protection of God. Indeed, God brought the animals to Noah, leaving Noah only the task of building the Ark, collecting rations and providing for them while on the Ark.

Accommodation:

The classic depiction of Noah’s Ark is of an impossibly overstuffed boat floating through the sea, filled with every species imaginable.

This does not hold a candle to the real Ark, however. 
According to the Bible, It was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. It had a noon light that ended a cubit upward and above, it had a door in the side, and there were three decks. 
The seaworthiness of it is unquestioned. As Tim Lovett writes (3),
“Noah’s Ark was the focus of a major 1993 scientific study headed by Dr. Seon Hong at the world-class ship research center KRISO, based in Daejeon, South Korea. Dr. Hong’s team compared twelve hulls of different proportions to discover which design was most practical. No hull shape was found to significantly outperform the 4,300-year-old biblical design.The study also confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 100 ft (30 m). Dr. Hong is now director general of the facility and claims “life came from the sea,” obviously not the words of a creationist on a mission to promote the worldwide Flood. Endorsing the seaworthiness of Noah’s Ark obviously did not damage Dr. Hong’s credibility.”

Now that we know how seaworthy the Ark was, how do we know it could sustain all the animals?
Firstly, let’s address the exclusions:
 Only “living creatures” were to be brought on the Ark. That excludes plants, bacteria, and fungi. The only plants brought on board the Ark were used for food. All other plants were presumably left outside. Also excluded were fish and other aquatic organisms, for obvious reasons.

Next, we must determine where the word “kind” lies for exclusion. 
As Dr. Marcus Ross writes, (4)
“In his book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe, for the sake of argument, chose the taxonomic rank just above the species—the genus. On this basis, he estimated that approximately 16,000 terrestrial vertebrate animals (consisting of nearly 8,000 genera of reptiles, mammals, and birds) were on board. However, Woodmorappe considered this a deliberate and huge overestimation, since he suspected that the “kind” was broader than the genus. Newer studies have indicated that “kinds” were generally at the level of family.” 

In fact, Woodmorappe chose the genus level so that he could demonstrate that even with unrealistically large numbers, Noah and his family could still care for all the animals on board the Ark.

To cite John Woodmorappe himself, (5)
“According to the Bible, the ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals, assuming they required approximately the same floor space as animals in typical farm enclosures and laboratories today. The vast majority of the creatures (birds, reptiles, and mammals) are small. The largest animals were probably only a few hundred pounds of body weight.
 
It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants, giraffes, rhinos, and some dinosaurs. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area. God would likely have sent to Noah young (and therefore small, but not newborn) representatives of these kinds so that they would have a full reproductive potential for life after the Flood to repopulate the earth. Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.
Without tiering of cages, only 47 percent of the ark floor would have been necessary. What’s more, many could have been housed in groups, which would have further reduced the required space.
What about the provisions for the animals? It can be shown that the food would have filled only 6 to 12 percent of the volume of the ark, and the potable water only an additional 9 percent of the same.”
Furthermore, Noah and his family were capable of feeding these animals. They likely kept food next to them, and kept self-feeding mechanisms like the water bottles routinely used for hamsters. 

To conclude the last two points:
given the combination of all these factors, it becomes increasingly clear that the Flood was very possible, and even in a worst-case scenario, Noah’s Ark was practical and possible.

Contention 2: The Evidence

Now that we have established some groundwork, let’s verify why these theories best fit the scientific and historical evidence.

Scientific:

Sediments:

Annually, about 20 billion tons of sediments are deposited into the ocean floors from the continents. (6) Around 1 billion tons of those sediments are removed via tectonic plates, as they slide slowly beneath continents. Thus, we have a net gain of 19 billion sediments each year. One would expect, therefore, an ocean choked with sediments. However, the average thickness of all these sediments globally over the whole seafloor is not even 1,300 feet. (7) With a net gain of 19 billion sediments per year, 1,300 feet of sediment would accumulate in less than 12 million years, not billions of years. After even 3 billion years of the proposed 4.5 billion, we would expect to see 250x more sediments than we do. (8)

However, this evidence comparably makes more sense in the context of a global Flood. No-doubt, loads of sediment would have been tossed into the seafloor as the waters receded. 

Further, however, there is evidence that the sediments were deposited much quicker in the past, completely consistent with the cataclysmic Flood scenario as opposed to the atheist explanation of the lack of sediments, which was “sediment deposit rates were slower in the past.” 
As Dr. Andrew A. Snelling writes, 
“Like the sediment layers on the continents, the sediments on the continental shelves and margins (the majority of the seafloor sediments) have features that unequivocally indicate they were deposited much faster than today’s rates. For example, the layering and patterns of various grain sizes in these sediments are the same as those produced by undersea landslides, when dense debris-laden currents (called turbidity currents) flow rapidly across the continental shelves and the sediments then settle in thick layers over vast areas." (8)

Bent Rock Layers:

In many areas of sedimentary rock, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been both bent and folded without fracturing. 
For example, in the Grand Canyon, the Tapeats Sandstone (which is on the bottom of the sequence) is bent 90 degrees in some instances. Similarly, the Muav Limestone has been bent. (9)
Supposedly, it took 270 million years to deposit these particular layers. 
The problem is, hardened rock layers are brittle. (10)
In the span of that time, the rock layers would have dried and surely fractured under pressure instead of bending and folding.

This, however, makes sense within the context of a global Flood. 
According to Snelling,
“rocks can be bent and folded soon after the sediment is deposited, before the natural cements have a chance to bind the particles together into hard, brittle rocks.” 
And so, he goes on to say that
“the only viable scientific explanation is that the whole sequence was deposited very quickly—the creation model indicates that it took less than a year, during the global Flood cataclysm.” (11)

The only real explanation atheists have been able to come up with is the fact that hard rocks can be molded through extreme heat and pressure. The problem is that the sedimentary rocks we observe today would have become metamorphic instead. Obviously, this never happened. We can see that the sandstone rocks were under little pressure and temperature as they were not metamorphic, but they are bent. So the only explanation is that they were bent when wet and pliable. 


Vast Rock Layers:

In the event of a worldwide Flood, one would expect to find vast, uniform rock layers with billions of fossils trapped within. This is scarily accurate to what we find on Earth.
Consider the Grand Canyon once more. The Tapeats Sandstone and its equivalents can be traced across North America, (12) and beyond to across northern Africa to southern Israel. (13) The span of the Tapeats Sandstone is thus over multiple continents. Limestones provide even more vast rock layers. As Snelling writes,
“Another layer in Grand Canyon is the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian) Redwall Limestone. This belongs to the Kaskaskia Megasequence of North America. So the same limestones appear in many places across North America, as far as Tennessee and Pennsylvania. These limestones also appear in the exact same position in the strata sequences, and they have the exact same fossils and other features in them.
Even more remarkable, the same Carboniferous limestone beds also appear thousands of miles east in England, containing the same fossils and other features.” (14)
He goes on, however, to talk about chalk and coal beds.
“Chalk beds can be traced westward across England and appear again in Northern Ireland. In the opposite direction, these same chalk beds can be traced across France, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, southern Scandinavia, and other parts of Europe to Turkey, then to Israel and Egypt in the Middle East, and even as far as Kazakhstan ...In the northern hemisphere, the Upper Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) coal beds of the eastern and Midwest USA are the same coal beds, with the same plant fossils, as those in Britain and Europe. They stretch halfway around the globe, from Texas to the Donetz Basin north of the Caspian Sea in the former USSR. In the southern hemisphere, the same Permian coal beds are found in Australia, Antarctica, India, South Africa, and even South America!” (14)
The point to all this is: how, apart from a global Flood, could such vast and uniform rock layers be deposited with such similar characteristics at the same times?

Historical:

There are over 270 worldwide flood stories from all various cultures all over the world. All of them are strikingly similar. 
The people that repopulated after the Flood must have carried the story with them, and it has since been distorted throughout the ages. However, essential details have remained consistent. 

Dr. Monty White compares two of these stories.
“Hawaiians have a flood story that tells of a time when, long after the death of the first man, the world became a wicked, terrible place. Only one good man was left, and his name was Nu-u. He made a great canoe with a house on it and filled it with animals. In this story, the waters came up over all the earth and killed all the people; only Nu-u and his family were saved.
Another flood story is from China. It records that Fuhi, his wife, three sons, and three daughters escaped a great flood and were the only people alive on earth. After the great flood, they repopulated the world.” (15)
Each story shares remarkable similarities to the account of Noah in the Bible. 
To demonstrate this, I suggest any reader go to https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/flood-legends/ and see the chart they have compiled of the various Flood legends. It is very convincing indeed.
To wrap up this point: How would such a uniform story be so widespread in histories and cultures without some sort of common background?

In conclusion, there are practical theories that are backed by substantial evidence for the Flood.

For a full compilation of sources, look here:

Published:
Thanks to christopher_best for the excellent topic.

TERMS:

PRO has not defined the relative burdens for proof but CON asserts that the greater burden must fall to PRO.  

Wikipedia advises:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". [1]

As an instigator making an extraordinary claim, the burden here is PRO's.
######################

DEFINITIONS:

SCIENCE is "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." [2]

HISTORY is "the past as it is described in written documents, and the study thereof.  Events occurring before written records are considered prehistory.  PRO has agree to confine the timing of Noah's flood to the time of human history." [3]

Wikipedia offers:

"The span of recorded history is roughly 5,000 years, beginning with Sumerian Cuneiform script; the oldest discovered form of coherent writing from the protoliterate period around the 30th century BC.  Ancient History covers all continents inhabited by humans in the 3,000 BC – 500 AD period." [4]

So- we are proving/disproving an event that took place in the last 5,000 years.

METAPHYSICS is "the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality." [5]

The GENESIS FLOOD narrative is "a flood myth found in the Tanakh (chapters 6–9 in the Book of Genesis).  The story tells of God's decision to return the Earth to its pre-creation state of watery chaos and then remake it in a reversal of creation.  By definition,  Noah's flood covered all global land masses with water and all terrestrial life not preserved on the Ark, a 450 ft long boat." [6]
###############################################

RESOLVED: Scientific, historic, and metaphysical evidence indicates the Biblical Noah's Flood could have, and did happened on Earth.

"Could have" is proven by "did," right?  If we establish that something did happen, we generally infer that it was also possible for that something to happen.  I parse the resolution to mean "Noah's flood is proven true."  PRO must prove that Noah's flood is true, CON must doubt this claim.

POINT #1: SCIENTIFICALLY

I.  For the flood to have covered the highest mountain on Earth with at least 15 cubits (22 ft) of water, [Gen. 7:20] [7] we'd need to increase the total amount of water bound to the earth by roughly 250% or 1,085,166,768 cubic miles of water. [8]  Solving for radius times two using Volume = 4/3 x (Pi) x radius cubed, we get a sphere with a diameter of about 1,275 miles. [9]  So for Genesis to be true, the Earth would have needed to collide with a sphere of water bigger than half the size of the Moon just to provide sufficient rain. 

Then all that water would had to somehow leave the pull of Earth's gravity over the space of the next year without influencing the orbit of the Earth or her Moon.  An atmosphere saturated with water vapor supporting 70 million square miles of daily rainfall for 40 days would drown any oxygen breathers in the atmosphere while also poisoning the water vapor with toxic levels of oxygen and nitrogen and increasing atmospheric PSI to 2-5 times human tolerances.  No human could survive on a planet precipitating that much water. [10] [11]

II.  A recent cataclysm of such unprecedented scale would have left records.

II.A  The Greenland Ice sheet is "is the largest body of permanent ice and snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere spanning over 1.7 million square kilometers, and is sensitive to changes in regional and global climate."  [12] The 1.5 million year old Ice sheet is 2 miles thick at the center and ice core sampling has allowed scientists to document the last 110,000 years of annual cycles of dust and frost. [13]  Obviously, the Greenland Ice Sheet would not have survived submersion in the boiling waters of any Genesis  type Flood, so these records serve as evidence that no such catastrophe has taken place in the last 5,000 years.  Similar ice cores form Antartic ice sheets corroborate Greenland's evidence.

II.B  One of the oldest known living organisms is the Pando Aspen colony in Fishlake Nation Forest, Utah.  The root system of this colony is estimated to be about 80,000 years old. [14]  Pando could not have survived submersion for the better part of a year in a saline flood.  Pando was certainly not sampled by Noah.  Therefore,  this colony (and hundreds like it that are younger colonies but still much older than 5,000 years old as well as many other plant species with specimens older than 5,000 years) serves as evidence that no such catastrophe has taken place in the last 5,000 years.

II.C The impact of recent population bottlenecks is typically made quite evident by reduction in variations in a population's gene pool.  Genetic markers tell us, for example, that all European Bison are descended from 12 individuals. [15] Similarly, we can tell that the majority of pet hamsters descend from a single litter [16] or that Galapagos Island tortoises experienced a dramatic reduction in genetic diversity about 88,000 years ago. [17

A 2005 Rutgers University study posits that the entire Pre-Columbian population of America was descended from just 70 individuals.  [18] Genetic homogeneity suggests that about 1/25th of 1% of all humans are directly descended from Genghis Khan. [19]  If all of humanity shared one common male ancestor as recently as 5,000 years ago, our lack of genetic diversity would be quite evident in our genetic makeup

POINT #2: HISTORICALLY

I.  Historians are reduced to one entirely unreliable source for documenting Noah: Genesis 6-9, a scant 2500 words.

Setting the specifics of the flood narrative aside, there are many other extraordinary and dubious claims in this short account.

  • I.A  Speaks twice of the "sons of God" who came in unto "the daughter of men"  refuting the New Testament claims regarding the "only begotten son of God" and suggesting older polytheistic origin myths. [Gen. 6:2]
  • I.B  Claims that giants walk the Earth. [Gen. 6:4]
  • I.C.  Claims that Noah live for 950 years. [Gen. 9:29]
  • I.D.  Claims that all the descendants of Ham shall be the slaves of the descendants of Shem as punishment for Ham having seen his father drunk and naked, establishing a religious pretext for the justification of slavery that continues to be cited into modernity. [Gen 9:25] [20]
II.   The Epic of Gilgamesh relates a remarkably similar flood account but with entirely different names, places, and divine motivations. [21]   Historians therefore conclude that Noah's account is not a reiteration of some eye-witness account at all, but rather a retelling of a popular mythology the Israelites learned from their Babylonian captors.  Genesis does not claim to be history.

POINT #3: METAPHYSICALLY

I.  Indeed the entire story was clearly meant to be interpreted symbolically and ceremonially rather than as any sort of literal truth.  Note that the name and the dimensions of Noah's Ark deliberately echo and prefigure the Ark of Moses.

II.  The story symbolically delegitimizes all other cultures and beliefs by ritual baptism, purifying the world of all other ancestries or religious traditions.  

III.  Metaphysically, the story of Noah depicts an all-knowing deity in a state of radical failure. 

Of the millions of individuals, of the thousands of species, only the smallest of handfuls are sufficiently uncorrupted to warrant salvation.  God's creation is so profoundly debauched and perverted that even the unborn children must perish unconditionally. 

Worse, the purification of mankind is an apparent and abject failure.  In the passages immediately following the Flood account, Noah is drunk and naked and cursing a third of his descendant to slavery.  [Gen 9:25] Thousands of years later, the corruption of mankind will have again proved so disturbing to God that God is again forced to a new act of atonement and purification in the conception and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. 

In other words, God's spectacular act of purification failed to achieve the advertised results, effectively reducing the flood to one frightening but meaningless act of genocide.  If the story of Noah were proved true in every aspect, the God depicted therein would also be shown to be unworthy of human worship.

Note that CON may not address PRO's argument in R1, wherein lies the majority of CON's efforts, definitionally.  I look forward to PRO's rebuttals in the second round.




Round 2
Published:
Good constructive by Oromagi! Sorry I’ve taken so long. Let’s dive in.

Burden of Proof:

Con essentially says that I cannot make claims without evidence and expect them to hold water. Glad I am being held to a high standard, as it would be a horrible debate if I did not advocate my point with evidence.

My burden of proof lies within the Resolution: I must prove that the evidence indicates that the Flood could have, and did happen. (Note that the word “indicates” does NOT guarantee as fact. To indicate means to be a sign or symptom of, which means that the evidence is a sign or symptom of a worldwide flood, not a guarantee of that fact. In other words, any argument revolving around “Well you can’t prove it happened 100% so therefore you lose” does not work, as I can still easily fulfill the resolution by showing how the evidence still indicates that the Flood did, indeed happen.) 

Obviously, Con does not have a burden of proof other than proving my evidence false or irrelevant. Unfortunately for Con, though, my evidence is sufficiently warranted and I fulfill my burden of proof. Con knows this, as he does not simply say “there is no evidence for a Flood” in his case, but instead makes a series of counterclaims. These counterclaims must be held to a standard of proof, though, because as anyone who reads this debate will come to see: many Old Earth arguments against the Flood carries big assertions just like the very arguments (misinformed arguments, albeit) for the Flood that they target. 

Judges: do not let Con fool you into buying into assertions of his own just because I must prove the Resolution. Buy no assertions, sift through the evidence! 

Definitions:
Definitions are straightforward and fair, I concede them.

Resolution:
My opponent points out that I did not need to include “could have.” 
He seems to slightly miss the point. With “could have,” I am focusing on refuting the common claim that Noah couldn’t have feasibly maintained an Ark, and the common claim that there was no mechanism by which to feasibly trigger the Flood, even if we DID have evidence of one. 

I refute these claims by showing the feasibility of the Ark, and how we can confirm a powerful deity who possessed practical means of achieving the Flood that fits the landscape we see today.

This, in essence, refutes the notion that the Flood is inherently implausible. 

That said, let’s dive into the claims made by my opponent.

Science:

Argument 1: The Earth contains too little water to Flood the Earth to the degree that the Bible recorded.

My opponent’s argument is that in order to cover the highest mountain, we would have to increase the amount of water on Earth by 250%.

This is founded on a few assumptions.

Firstly, my opponent assumes that the Earth was the same pre-Flood in terms of geography as it is now.

He cites Genesis, saying that the waters rose 15 cubits over the highest mountains. 
However, the Hebrew word usually translated "mountains" in most English translations can just as easily mean "hills".

As I have established, it is well-known that in ancient history there was a supercontinent of sorts. This is unanimously advocated by both secular scientists and creationist ones. 
The difference lies in the models used. The secular model gives no cause, but simply says over millions of years the continents drifted apart. The supercontinent, under the Flood model, would have been broken apart due to the impacts of meteors and the waters from the deep.
Thus, we can infer that mountains such as Everest were formed towards the end/after the Flood by collision of tectonic plates and upthrusting due to the impacts of meteors. (1) Obviously, the “high hills” of before would have more easily been overcome by the Flood waters than the finished product of Everest, and not require a “250% increase”. This is recorded in Psalm 104:8, where the Flood waters are described as eroding and retreating down valleys as the mountains rose at the end of the Flood.
Secondly, my opponent assumes that the ocean floors themselves did not rise.

The “fountains of the deep” described in the Bible would mean that the split of the Earth crust, continental drift and jets of water would send magma shooting into the ocean floor.
As Snelling describes, 
“the ocean floors would have been effectively replaced by hot lavas. Being less dense than the original ocean floors, these hot lavas would have had an expanded thickness, so the new ocean floors would have effectively risen, raising the sea level by more than 3,500 feet (1,067 m). Because today’s mountains had not yet formed, and it is likely the pre-Flood hills and mountains were nowhere near as high as today’s mountains, a sea level rise of over 3,500 feet would have been sufficient to inundate the pre-Flood continental land surfaces.
Toward the end of the Flood, when the molten rock cooled and the ocean floors sank, the sea level would have fallen and the waters would have drained off the continents into new, deeper ocean basins.” (2)

We even have substantial scientific evidence of this happening! 

For example, many layers in the uppermost sections of present-day Everest contain numerous sea-fossils. This is not unique to Everest either: throughout the Himalayas there are fossil ammonites that geologists agree must have been buried by ocean waters. (2)


Argument 2: The water would have to come in the form of a sphere of rain that would be half the size of the Moon. 

This, and the next argument ignores the main source of Flood water: the deep!
Within their mineral structure, rocks on Earth contain enough water to fill the Earth’s oceans ten times over, to the very least.
There is evidence that the upper layers of the mantle have had water drawn from them in the past, and they are referred to as the “depleted mantle.” (3)
This source of water from the deep, in conglomeration with the rising of the seafloors and the tsunamis and water jets of the continental plate movement/meteor strikes is more than enough to supply water for the Flood without the use of the cited volume of constant rain. 


Argument 3: If that water existed and was raining down, the atmosphere would be toxic to those on the Ark.

Refer to my previous rebuttal. However, to elaborate further: the “rain” was in large part supplies by jets of water from the deep, therefore refuting the idea that the atmosphere was nothing but water vapor and clouds at the time.

Argument 4: Ice cores give no evidence of a Flood.

There are several inherent flaws in this form of argumentation. 
Firstly, the dates of the ice cores are inherently inaccurate because they are solely based on fallacious assumption. 

This assumption is the assumption that ice layers are indeed annual in nature. Clearly, they are not.
As Snelling writes, 
“Consider the World War II fighter plane abandoned on a Greenland glacier in 1942. When history buffs tried to recover the plane 46 years later, they were astonished to find that more than 250 feet (75 m) of ice had already entombed it. That 250 feet held many more layers than the 50 it should have had if only one layer had accumulated every year. 
We don’t have to be scientists to know that snow usually leaves more than one layer a year. Snow layers are visible every time snow falls through the winter months. When you clear your driveway or sidewalk of snow, you can see snow layers in the banks of accumulated snow you just shoveled through.” (4)
To put this in perspective, this is a 400% increase.  Assuming the rates were constant, 4,300 years worth of ice [the amount of time ago when the Flood happened] would appear to be 21,500 years according to this method of dating. Clearly, the rates weren’t constant but this is just for perspective of how inaccurate this dating method truly is! In fact, we can infer that the method would simply get more inaccurate over time.
Thus, because we can’t trust an inaccurate dating method, we do not have the ability to judge whether events happened in the last 5,00 years with ice cores dated using those layers.
Well then, how can we account for the vast amounts of ice layers? You do indeed make a valid point in that the ice layers would have melted because of the warm waters! To answer this, Snelling goes on to cite Dr. Larry Vardiman, former atmospheric physicist for the Institute for Creation Research. 
“He and his graduate students tested alternative possibilities. They examined computer records of known storms to simulate their behavior if the surface of the ocean were hotter, as it was in the early decades after the Flood. (Remember those hot volcanic waters that were released from “the fountains of the great deep” at the start of the Flood? They would have raised the ocean water temperatures considerably. Furthermore, the impacts of meteors would indeed have a “nuclear winter” effect.)
These researchers found that huge storms would have swept across polar regions, dumping many inches of snow every week. As the surface melted between these storms, 20 or more ice layers could easily have accumulated every year during the first century or two after the Flood. The same time period saw many dust-producing volcanic eruptions, as supervolcanoes rocked the earth and the planet settled into relative quiet after the cataclysmic upheavals of the Flood. So most of the ice core layers would probably have accumulated during the turbulent centuries of the post-Flood Ice Age.” (4)

Argument 5: Old plants refute Flood.

There is a major, major fallacy in using supposedly ancient plants such as the Pando Aspen colony to refute the Flood’s timeline, because we have literally no clue of the ages of those plants. 

Take the Pando tree, the estimated age ranges from 11,000 years (the supposed age of the oldest clone) to over 1 million years. (Burton Barnes of the University of Michigan has suggested that aspen clones in the western United States may reach the age of a million years or more.)

There is no way to measure the age of the root system. It is completely guessed, based on estimated ages of other things, which are dated using fallacious dating methods like radioactive dating and tree-ring dating. 

My opponent will obviously point out that even 11,000 years is over the limit of 4,300 years. However, this is the age of the clone determined through tree-ring dating. This form of dating ignores several factors that determine the growth rate of trees and the width of their growth rings—the soils, altitude, water table, climate, seasons, and weather. Droughts, fires, and periods of abnormally high rainfall will impact the growth pattern of tree rings, so a tree will not always have one growth ring per year. (4) Therefore, just like the ice core problem, we will see a very inflated age associated with the same number of rings.

Therefore, because we can not actually determine the age of the plants with even a hint of accuracy, and because the minimum range falls well within the age of the Flood, we can not use plants to determine whether the Flood did or did not happen.

Argument 6: Our genetics are too diverse.

My opponent is right! If the Flood happened, we would see a big genetic imprint in humans today. We would see it in the form of lineage and genetic indiversity.

Too bad we don’t. Oh wait, we do!

Gen 7:7 and  Gen 9:18–19 tell us what we need to know. 

We know based on this, that there was only one Y chromosome present on the Ark, the one Noah gave to all his sons. 

We also know, on the female side, that there were three mitochondrial DNA lineages present.

There were, give or take, eight X chromosomes present.
This is a rather large amount of genetic diversity within X chromosomes, as X chromosomes recombine in females.

This is significant, because the evidence fits with what we see in the Biblical model. 
According to Dr Robert W. Carter,
“It turns out that Y chromosomes are similar worldwide. According to the evolutionists, no “ancient” (i.e., highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found. This serves as a bit of a puzzle to the evolutionist, and they have had to resort to calling for a higher “reproductive variance” among men than women, high rates of “gene conversion” in the Y chromosome, or perhaps a “selective sweep” that wiped out the other male lines. For the biblical model, it is a beautiful correlation and we can take it as is.” (5)

He goes on to say,
“the evidence from mitochondrial DNA fits our model just as neatly as the Y chromosome data. As it turns out, there are three main mitochondrial DNA lineages found across the world.” (5)

But, besides lineages, it is clear that humans have had a bottleneck from lack of diversity.
Carter concludes: “The general lack of diversity among people is the reason the Out of Africa model has humanity going through a disastrous, near-extinction bottleneck with only about 10,000 (and perhaps as few as 1,000) people surviving.” (5)


History:

Argument 1: Genesis is unreliable because of strange claims.

My opponent cites various things Genesis claims as a way to undermine the source.

Firstly, he speaks of Genesis 6:2. 

He says that this verse undermines the notion that Jesus was the only son of God. This is a major misinterpretation of the text. 
Sons of God would refer only to Godly men of the time.

While commenting on Genesis in Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold elaborates: 
“Such men merit to be called the “sons of God” (benê ‘elohîm), a title applied to true followers of God elsewhere in the Old Testament Scriptures. When the psalmist refers to such (Psalm 73:15) as “the generation of thy children,” he uses the same word “sons,” describing them as belonging to God. Deuteronomy 32:5 uses the same word “sons” (“children,” A. V.) in reference to Israel. Hosea 1:10 is, if anything, a still stronger passage, saying specifically to Israel, “Ye are sons of the living God” (Heb. benê ‘el chay). Psalm 80:17 also belongs here. “


Secondly, he speaks of Genesis claims that Giants once walked the Earth.

One must realize that the word “Nephilim” (the original word usually simply replaced with “giants”) has a very debated meaning, and it depends on one's interpretation of “Sons of God.” Many criticize the view I have laid out above, saying instead that angels mated and produced giants with women. (Hence, the translation of “giants” in place of Nephilim.) This is a bad view of the passage, and you criticize it yourself.

Let Leupold elaborate further:
“We have had no mention made of angels thus far in Genesis. We have met with other sons of the true God, in fact, the whole preceding chapter, even 4:25–5:32, has been concerned with them. Who will, then, be referred to here?“
Obviously, it is that Godly men were indeed the Sons of God.
Once we establish that, we have no evidence of there being giants in this passage. 
As Bodie Hodge says regarding the meaning of the word Nephilim,
“Godly men (sons of God) were marrying women who were not godly (daughters of men), such as Cain’s (or others of Adam’s) descendants, including ungodly people from Seth’s line, thus resulting in Nephilim because they fell away from God’s favor. Once again, the Hebrew word Nephilim is related to the verb series “to fall.” For example, we know Cain fell away, and Lamech (descendant of Cain) and many other men and women had fallen away. The Nephilim could easily have been people who had fallen or turned from God in a severe way. This would also make sense as to why some of Canaan’s descendants (descendants of Anak were Canaanites) were called Nephilim in Numbers 13.” (6) 

Thirdly, he claims that Noah could not have lived 950 years therefore making Genesis inaccurate.

One must remember the absolute miniscule amount of time 950 years is in light of the eternity humanity was intended to live on for in a sinless world. 

However, humanity gradually began to experience the corruption of sin even more so in all biological aspects of the world.
Indeed, Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. David Menton both document the initial lifespans of humans following the Flood.

 “During the 1,000 years following the Flood, however, the Bible records a progressive decline in the life span of the patriarchs, from Noah who lived to be 950 years old until Abraham at 175 (see figure 1 and table 2). In fact, Moses was unusually old for his time (120 years) because, when he reflected on the brevity of life, he said: ‘The days of our lives are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they are eighty years, yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away’” (7)

Why is this significant? 
Well, this lines up with extra-biblical historical records! 
“There are many striking parallels between the Sumerian King List and Genesis, such as a flood event, numerical parallels between the pre-Flood biblical patriarchs and the antediluvian kings, and a substantial decrease in life span of people following the flood.” (7)

Furthermore, 
“It is more likely that the Sumerian King List was composed using Genesis for numerical information. Obviously, the Book of Genesis would only be used if the person writing the list believed it to be a true historical account containing accurate information.” (7)

Biologically, however, there are some genetic traits that could have caused these long life-spans. 
“Genetic studies of centenarians (people who have lived more than 100 years) have produced several possible candidate longevity genes. The gene for apolipoprotein E (APOE), important in the regulation of cholesterol, has certain alleles that are more common among centenarians. This is also true for certain alleles of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), important in cell proliferation and cell death, and superoxide dismutases (SOD), important in the breakdown of agents that damage DNA. Possibly the alleles associated with the centenarians more closely reflect the genetic makeup of individuals with a long life span 6,000 years ago.” (7)

Fourthly, he cites the Curse of Ham. 

I won’t get into the Curse of Ham other than saying that no matter how you feel about it, (whether it is just, unjust, existed, or did not exist) it does not matter when assessing the historical and scientific accuracy of a text.
This is a non-argument.






Published:
Thanks again, christopher_best for instigating this debate.

Let’s remember that the burden is on PRO to prove the Flood as described in Genesis 6-9.

Rebuttal #1: Possibilities, Possibilities.  
The Flood:
Metaphysical possibilities:
PRO opens with a muddle of circular reasoning.  No evidence is offered but God and the Flood are asserted as mutually confirming.
P1:  The Flood is true because God exists
P2: God exists because the Flood is true
And also-
 P1: The abstract (God ) confirms the concrete (The Flood)
P2: The concrete (The Flood) confirms the abstract (God)
And astonishingly: “The nature of the abstract is irrelevant so long as it provides basis.”   That is, the nature of God is irrelevant so long as God’s existence confirms the flood.
Both assertions depend on the same unreliable text which PRO assumes to be true:”I will be assuming the Bible happens to be the accurate depiction.”  But such an assumption relies on the same circular interdependency:
P1:  The Flood is true because the Bible is accurate
P2:  The Bible is accurate because the Flood is true.
If we assume that the Bible is accurate then there is no need to prove the Flood- the Flood is a given.  Pro’s entire first argument amounts to:
Given that the Flood is true, the Flood is true.
In the absence of any evidence, PRO’s metaphysical argument may be safely disregarded as irrational.
Scientific possibilities:

Impact Theory

PRO mixes together a couple of theories here to conclude that both the Flood and nearly all tectonic plate movement are accountable to the same event.

PRO cites G.E. Williams’ descriptions of the Acraman event as one potential candidate for a Flood 4300 yrs ago but Williams clearly dates the event to 590 million years ago because

  1. The crater is deeply eroded
  2. Shocked volcanic fragments are found within the dateable Bunyeroo sandstone formations [1]
  3. A rapid diversification of marine microorganism occurs just above the ejecta layer, [2] suggesting evolutionary shift in response to major die off (note: the first vertebrates wouldn’t appear for another 60 million years- no organisms, say, visible to the naked eye are found at this depth.) [3]
  4. 2 km thickness or more of overlying sedimentary rocks have built up and then eroded, badly distorting the crater so diameters are estimates- from 35 km to 90km with corresponding variation in estimated meteor size. [4]

PRO cherry-picks Williams data for an impact crater of likely size but ignores Williams’ dating.  Simple observation of geologic processes during human life spans rules out the possibility of 2km of sedimentary rock forming and eroding in less than 5000 years.

Worse, PRO wants to use this event (or one like it) to explain all plate tectonic movement from Pangea to present. Baumgardner’s Runaway Subduction Theory posits an (unexplained) descent of a third of the earth’s crust in one 100km thick slab of basalt might superheat the mantle to sufficient viscosity to move the continents. Baumgardner admits that excess heat might be a problem for Noah:

“If we further assume a volume coefficient of thermal expansion of 2.5 × 10-5K-1, an uncompressed density of 3,400 kg/m3 , a mean temperature difference of 1000 K, gravitational acceleration of 10 m/s2, and a mantle depth of 2,500 km, we obtain a value for the potential energy of 3 × 10(28) J. This is equivalent to the kinetic energy of approximately 100 asteroids each 100 km in diameter moving at 20 km/s. Clearly the sinking of a significant fraction of the earth’s oceanic lithosphere in a brief period provides a huge supply of energy for performing tectonic work. In regard to an energy source, it would therefore appear that none besides the sinking oceanic lithosphere is required, provided the process can somehow be initiated and the mantle viscosity is sufficiently low.” [5]

So all Baumgardner requires is the kinetic energy of 100 asteroids 60 miles in diameter simultaneously striking the earth?   Put another way 30,000 Yottajoules is roughly the thermal output of our Sun for 75 seconds. [6]  Even if God saved Noah, the planet itself would have evaporated.

Noah:

Building:

PRO argues that 600 years of experience (plus God, of course) would aid Noah in building the most sophisticated bit of engineering seen by Mankind to that date.

The longest lived human according to the Gerontology Research Group was 122 years old. [7]  The Hayflick limit demonstrates that normal human cells are able only able to divide a limited number of times, [8] suggesting that 150 years is probably the outer limit of human blood count, etc. endurance. [9]  Only supernatural intervention might account for PRO’s claim that Noah lived 8 times the measure of  human maximums.

Accommodation:

If PRO had gone to Dr. Hong’s  paper rather than Tim Lovett’s description of that paper in “Answers in Genesis,” PRO would have discovered a rather more nuanced report:

  1. The Korean Assc. of Creation Research paid 9 ship builders to build and test 12 1/50th scale model wooden boats.  Whether that qualifies as a “major” study is subjective.
  2. The 1993 paper was published in The Journal of Creation and was not peer-reviewed. [10]
  3. The overall box design was implemented in all models-  Hong tested length-beam ratio and made some guesses about the Ark’s draft. That is, variations in prow, keel, hull curve, etc were not tested.
  4. Neither Lovett or Hong note that the shipbuilder’s rule of thumb for beam-length ratio is a formula known to ancient shipbuilders: the width of a boat should be about the cube root of length, squared, plus one.  [11] Hong’s efforts are little more than a confirmation of the worthiness of that old rule of thumb as reflected in Genesis.
  5. Lovett says that no hull shape outperformed the Ark.  Hong actually concluded:

the Ark had the second best hull design, with the best hull design in this case being hull #1, which had the worst overturning stability ... the Ark as a drifting ship, is thus believed to have had a reasonable-beam-draft ratio.

PRO goes further than Lovett to declare that “The seaworthiness of it is unquestioned,” but the truth is that the Ark’s dimensions exceed even modern engineers capacities for keeping a wooden boat afloat.  The closest we’ve gotten is the Wyoming at 329 ft (219 cubits) which required steel reinforcement and two steam powered bilge pumps because it leaked so badly during heavy seas and nevertheless the ship took on too much water during a storm and sank, killing all aboard. [12]

Tellingly, although numerous full-scale and reduced scale arks have been built over the years, the only one that floats was built on top of a platform of 21 steel barges.  “Johan’s Ark” can be “towed by tugboats over the rivers, but it is not seaworthy.”

The seaworthiness of full scale Noah’s ark remains untested because such a project is so apparently perilous.

Cargo

PRO argues that all plants, bacteria, fungi, invertebrates, and marine life were excluded from the Ark but fails to source this claim or explain how most of Earth’s lifeforms endured.  PRO limits ARK passengers to 8,000 of the most charismatic species of megafauna without considering how the other estimated 30 million species of life might have survived disaster.  PRO makes no provision for insects, for example- how did the millions of different spiders, grasshoppers, ants, and beetles survive under miles of flood water? Most freshwater aquatic life dies quickly in a saltwater deluge.  How did trees survive the pressure under miles of water and how did they take root again after the soil was destroyed and replaced with salted sediment?

PRO gets into the logistics of maintaining 8,000 species on board but CON will ignore these points.  These details are certainly relevant to proving Genesis generally but irrelevant, unprovable, & thorny for our purpose which is proving the flood. 

Noah’s plan to save 3/10ths of 1% of the world’s species from planetary immolation by storing one mated pair of each in a leaky boat sounds neither practical nor possible despite PRO’s protestations.

Evidence

Scientific:

Sediments:
PRO’s own sources undermine Snelling’s assertions pretty thoroughly here.  PRO references Hay, et al. for annual sediment deposit but misses Hay’s conclusion 


it can be estimated that if the overall mass has remained constant through time, between 150 and 250 x 102(21) g of ocean floor sediment are subducted every 180 m.y.. If, for simplicity, we assume 180 x 10(21)g are subducted every 180 m.y., this means that 1 x 10 TM g is subducted every million years….  that implies that if plate tectonics have been operating since the Archaean, a mass of sediment larger than the total mass presently in existence (about 2500 x 10 TM g, according to Southam and Hay [1981]) has been subducted over the course of the Earth's history.” [13]

Or put another way, the Earth subducts a mass of sediment equal to the total mass of all sediment today about every 2.5 billion years.  

Obviously, PRO’s presentation of evidence confirming sedimentation and subduction rates cycles spanning billions of years refutes Snelling as well as a mass sedimentation & tectonic event 4,300 years ago.

Bent Rock Layers:

Common sense tells us that if rock can behave like liquid at sufficiently high heat and pressure (lava, magma) then  rock is not always brittle and that intermediary applications of heat and pressure might deform, plasticize,bend layers of sediment under sufficient pressure.

Or as PRO’s own source, Goodman, tells us in Introduction to Rock Mechanics:

We can discuss a “mechanics of rocks” in these chapters but such a discussion must be broad in scope if it is to have general value because the term “rock” includes a great variety of material types.  Granite can behave in a brittle, elastic manner, up to confining pressures of hundreds of megapascals, while carbonate rocks become plastic at moderate pressures and flow like clay.” [14]

Since Goodman asserts that limestone can flow like clay at moderate pressures, why is PRO using this source to back Snelling’s ant-geological notions?but they are bent. So the only explanation is that they were bent when wet and pliable. 


Vast Rock Layers:

Snelling is also refuted by another source of PRO’s.  Boggs' “Principles of Sedimentology” clearly places Tapeats in Cambrian- 540 to 490 million years ago, not 4,300.  (I had to pdf a 4th Ed for a readable copy)

“Perhaps the most famous North American example of a time-transgressive formation is the Cambrian Tapeats Sandstone in the Grand Canyon region.  This sandstone is all early Cambrian in age at the west end of the Canyon and all mid- dle Cambrian in age at the eastern end “ [15]

PRO's  source Boggs says 500 million years ago, Snelling says 5,000.

Historical:

PRO argues that over 270 worldwide flood stories suggest a global Flood but CON argues that they suggest a mythological archetype. Egyptian culture was in its 5th dynasty at this time- Egyptian tombs do not record a global die off of everything, only a shift to Sixth Dynasty.  Why would so many cultures get so many of the details differently? 

Look forward to PRO's R3.

[1]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284286654_Acraman_A_major_impact_structure_from_the_Neoproterozoic_of_Australia
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acraman_crater
[3]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate
[4]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284286654_Acraman_A_major_impact_structure_from_the_Neoproterozoic_of_Australia
[5]http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Numerical-Simulation-of-the-Large-Scale-Tectonic-Changes.pdf
[6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule#Practical_examples
[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment
[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayflick_limit
[9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span
[10]https://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway
[11]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam_(nautical)
[12]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner)
Round 3
Published:
Good rebuttal on Oromagi’s part. Now, let us wrap this up, shall we?

Burden of Proof:

Pro simply reiterates that I have a burden of proof. 

Again, my burden of proof lies within the Resolution: I must prove that the evidence indicates that the Flood could have, and did happen. 

Obviously, Con does not have a burden of proof other than proving my evidence false or irrelevant. 

Once more, my evidence is sufficiently warranted and I fulfill my burden of proof. My opponent, on the other hand, does not fulfill his burden in the least.

The rest of this defense will be spent proving that fact. 

Defense 1: Circular Reasoning
My opponent says that my first point is a muddle of circular reasoning, so we can disregard the point. There are major, blatant problems with how he construes and argues against my points, but it gets a little complicated so I just need readers to bear with me.

First off, contrary to what my opponent implies: there is good circular reasoning, and bad circular reasoning.

Here is bad circular reasoning in action: 
X is true because of Y.
Y is true because of X. (1)

This line of reasoning should not lead us to consider X and Y to be true, just like how “If X then Y” by itself doesn’t lead us to believe that Y is true. Bad circular reasoning will do this, such as  

“God exists because the bible says so, and the bible is true because God exists. Thus, both God and the Bible are true.”

Clearly, both statements are a logical fallacy because they are interdependent and absolute, with no proper reasoning as to why one confirms the other if the validity of the statements are in question. This is why logical arguments tend to be formulated in “if X then Y.”

And so, if this were what I was doing it would be correct to dismiss my points. However,
I do not extrapolate a conclusion in the reasoning itself. This is what the rest of my case is for, obviously! Thus, my reasoning is perfectly valid. 

Despite this, my opponent slyly changes what I am saying entirely to skew the meaning into such a fallacy. 
He dumbs it down to this: 
“The Flood happened because God exists, and God exists because the Flood happened.”

This is NOT what I am saying. I am saying this instead, the classic example of GOOD circular reasoning:

If X is true, Y.
If Y is true, X.

And so, in more detail: 
                                                         
What I am actually saying (with both of the first two arguments)  is that if the Flood happened, God must exist. Because we have evidence for a worldwide Flood of unknown origin, that then gives basis for the existence of God.
(And thus basis for the supernatural events necessary to spark a worldwide Flood.)

Anyone can see that those statements, if backed up with evidence, aren’t wrong because of circular reasoning. 

 Tim van der Zee puts it well: 

“[In good circular reasoning] each individual statement is perfectly valid, and the combination of the two are also valid. In fact, if Y stands for something with a non-zero prior probability then the inclusion of the second argument increases the probability that X is true.” (2)

It is a matter of nuance and detail, but distinctly important when trying to distinguish between good and bad circular reasoning.

Thus, I win this point.


Next, my opponent furthers by saying all of the above statements depend on my assertion that the Bible is the accurate depiction of the Flood.

I stand by my statement that the Bible is the accurate depiction, but let’s assume for a moment that I don’t.

Quite clearly, my reasoning does not hinge on the Bible being the accurate depiction. Perhaps some of my other arguments do, but the fundamental lines of reasoning do not.

I’ve already said: the nature of god is irrelevant as are the fine details. The fine details I have filled in with the Bible, and used as the basis for some further argumentation, but the essentials of the Flood (found in most every myth, legend, and historical account) are as follows: a Global Flood was originated by a divine being who spared a man and one of each “kind” of animal to repopulate the Earth.

Thus, my reasoning would still stand.

That said, the Bible is the accurate depiction.

When I said ”I will be assuming the Bible happens to be the accurate depiction” my opponent depicts my line of logic in this way: 

“The Flood is true because the Bible is accurate.
The Bible is accurate because the Flood is true.”

He clearly misinterprets. He goes further to say: 
“If we assume that the Bible is accurate then there is no need to prove the Flood- the Flood is a given.”

My actual logic is this:
“If the Flood is true, the Bible would default to be the most accurate historical depiction among scholars.”

Thus, I never tried to argue the Bible is infallible and unquestionable. I am arguing for the existence of the Flood. The Bible can be inferred (I admit I misspoke and should NOT have said “assuming,” but more like “inferring! You will see why soon)  to be the most reasonable historical record, so my opponent ends up falsely turning my inference based on historical evidence to a cruddy argument from authority. 

This is not an accurate depiction of my argument and is thus invalid.

Now, what makes the Bible the most historical depiction?
Good question!

Remember: There are over 270 worldwide flood stories from all various cultures all over the world. All of them are strikingly similar. 

All stories bear striking resemblance, but Genesis is the most credible for historical accuracy.

We see this in several ways. Firstly, with one exception, every flood myth we know about was recorded long after Genesis. (3) Thus, any historian would choose Genesis as the go-to for information regarding the Flood.
Secondly, Genesis is clearly written in the style of historical narrative. Take this, and oppose it to the Epic of Gilgamesh, the only other real contender for Genesis in terms of old age (and thus, accuracy), which is written as a poem. 

 Troy Lacey and Lee Anderson, Jr. go into this further:
“Unlike myths, the Bible carefully records minute details about ancient cultures, and it freely acknowledges the shortcomings of its “heroes.” Such honesty and attention to detail is highly unusual in ancient mythology, but appropriate for true history.
As it relates to the Flood, the language of Genesis 6–9 is so descriptive and matter-of-fact in stating the details of what God did and how Noah obeyed God, that there is no room for considering it allegory or mythology. While its writing style and literary structure are extremely sophisticated, the Genesis account avoids most of the poetic devices typical of Egyptian or Near Eastern epic poetry.” (3)
Thirdly, throughout history Genesis has been considered as fact. Troy and Lee continue:
“Moreover, the rest of Scripture considers the events of Genesis 6–9 to be factual history. For example, the writer of 1 Chronicles records Noah as being the ancestor of Abraham (1 Chronicles 1:4, 1:27). Jesus mentions Noah as a real historical person and the Flood as a real historical event (Matthew 24:37–39). Luke includes Noah in the genealogy of Christ (Luke 3:36), while Peter twice mentions that Noah built the Ark and was one of only eight people saved (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5).” (3)
 
Thus, clearly Genesis has been long-considered historical and is clearly written as historical. More than 270 other myths and legends and retellings have been spawned from this influential and indeed historical document. Thus, the Bible would be the basis for historical information in the event of proving a Flood. 
 
My inference is not so fallacious now, is it?

Conclusions, conclusions.
For the next part of his rebuttal, my opponent spends his time assessing each source I use and picking out details that do not align with my view.

My opponent and judges should understand that the evidence every scientist observes are the same. It is how we interpret that evidence that is different. This happens all the time in science. It is not needed for every scientist to agree with every other. If they did, science would go nowhere.

Thus, I can cite a piece of finding from a scientist and draw a different conclusion than that scientist. That is not “cherry-picking” data. That said, let’s move on.

Defense 2: Impact Theory
My opponent says that the crater Williams observed has been dated to 590 million years, and so therefore it could not have triggered the Flood. He gives four reasons. 

1. The crater is deeply eroded
Erosion is the name of the game in the case of a worldwide Flood. Erosion would be rampant and substantial, logically, in the case of a Flood where the waters eventually recede. 

2. “Shocked volcanic fragments are found within the dateable Bunyeroo sandstone formations”
I interpret this to mean fragments from the collision are found in dateable sandstone formations, and thus the fragments are the same age as the corresponding layers in the sandstone.

My opponent gives us no reference as to how one would date this rock, but in this situation one has little to no options but forms of radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating is indeed based in assumption.
It is founded on the unprovable assumptions: that there were daughter isotopes to begin with, that the decay rate has remained constant, and that there has been no contamination.

Assumption 1:
Regarding the first assumption, geologists have tried to predict the beginning number of daughter isotopes accurately, but this is via the so-called isochron technique, which is still based on the other assumptions I spoke of!

Take Argon-40 dating as an example of many. As Dr. Andrew A. Snelling writes, using both his own research and that of S. A. Austin: 
“lava flows that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, and they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected. For example, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years.”
He goes on to conclude,
 it is logical to conclude that if recent lava flows of known age yield incorrect old potassium-argon ages due to the extra argon-40 that they inherited from erupting volcanoes, then ancient lava flows of unknown ages could likewise have inherited extra argon-40 and yield excessively old ages.” (4)


Assumption 2: 
There is evidence that suggests while rates may be relatively constant within 100 years or so, it is a much different story beyond that.
According to L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin: “the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite yields a uranium-lead “age” of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals.
This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking. The rate of uranium decay must have been at least 250,000 times faster than today’s measured rate.” (4)

Assumption 3:
Contamination from wallrocks as lava is spewed during eruption, the molten rocks beneath volcanoes, and even rainwater is completely unaccounted for in these calculations. Clearly, over spans of billions of years, that leads to huge miscalculation.
According to Snelling, “Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!”
(4)


In essence, combinations of all these assumptions lead to massively overbloated dates, therefore delinking any argument Con can make regarding radiometric dating.
 
3. A rapid diversification of marine microorganism occurs just above the ejecta layer,  suggesting evolutionary shift in response to major die off.

The rapid “diversification” is likely a result of rapid death as the waters rose and sediments rapidly ensnared all sorts of creatures. 
It is logical to assume vertebrates would climb to higher ground as fast as they possibly could, and when the waters inevitably caught up with them they were then entrapped far above the lower-dwelling, simpler organisms. To say that the vertebrates did not come for another 60 million years is based on the assumptions inherent in radiometric dating, and is thus invalid.

Indeed, when we see the bent rock layers and the fallacies in radiometric dating, we clearly see that the rock layers were quickly deposited and resulted in what we observe today near this crater.

4. 2 km thickness or more of overlying sedimentary rocks have built up and then eroded, badly distorting the crater so diameters are estimates- from 35 km to 90km with corresponding variation in estimated meteor size. 
I have already explained this, but maybe it wasn’t quite clear first time around, so here goes.

As the Flood waters built up, rapid sediment layers were deposited, bent, and cemented one after another. Once the waters receded, however, substantial erosion occurred as the waters ran back into the oceans. 

This explains perfectly how sediments were stacked and then badly eroded in this crater. 
Defense 3: Subduction Theory
Here is the first quote from my opponent: 
“Baumgardner’s Runaway Subduction Theory posits an (unexplained) descent of a third of the earth’s crust in one 100km thick slab of basalt might superheat the mantle to sufficient viscosity to move the continents.”

It is completely explained, refer to the meteor impact theory I submit and defend vigorously.

Next, my opponent cites Baumgardner’s speculation and then dubs it as proof that the Earth would have evaporated under this theory.  He goes on to say this:

“So all Baumgardner requires is the kinetic energy of 100 asteroids 60 miles in diameter simultaneously striking the earth?  Put another way 30,000 Yottajoules is roughly the thermal output of our Sun for 75 seconds. Even if God saved Noah, the planet itself would have evaporated.”

My opponent has misread, misinterpreted, and misrepresented Baumgardner’s literature! 

Read once more, unimportant things not highlighted:
“Let us assume that amount of lithosphere that could sink to the bottom of the mantle to represent a layer 100 km thick covering 30% of the earth’s surface. If we further assume a volume coefficient of thermal expansion of 2.5 × 10-5K-1, an uncompressed density of 3,400 kg/m3 , a mean temperature difference of 1000 K, gravitational acceleration of 10 m/s2, and a mantle depth of 2,500 km, we obtain a value for the potential energy of 3 × 1028 J. This is equivalent to the kinetic energy of approximately 100 asteroids each 100 km in diameter moving at 20 km/s. Clearly the sinking of a significant fraction of the earth’s oceanic lithosphere in a brief period provides a huge supply of energy for performing tectonic work. In regard to an energy source, it would therefore appear that none besides the sinking oceanic lithosphere is required, provided the process can somehow be initiated and the mantle viscosity is sufficiently low.”

Clearly, all Baumgardner is saying here is that the sinking of the lithosphere would generate that equivalent of kinetic energy to produce the plate movement and waters. Not that it was initiated by that amount of energy from meteors!

Thus, there is no evidence for the assertion that 100, 60-mile diameter asteroids are required to trigger the collapse of the lithosphere.

But, even still, Baumgardner said something very important that Con conveniently left out: “ It is convenient to assume the material sinks in an adiabatic (relating to or denoting a process or condition in which heat does not enter or leave the system concerned) fashion, which is reasonable if we are dealing with a timescale on the order of a year.”

Indeed, Con assumes that all asteroids hit at the same time, and that lithospheric collapse happened all simultaneously! Over the course of a year, however, there is substantial time for large asteroids to hit, cause a gradual yet powerful collapse of the lithosphere and disperse energy without causing a global “meltdown.” 

Defense 4: Building
My opponent claims that human long life could only be achieved supernaturally. Perhaps so, that still provides a mechanism though, if God exists!

Besides, I still have shown historical record for long-lived humans, and biological possibilities regarding them.



Just wanted to say this has been an awesome debate, I have regards for you Oromagi :)
Published:
Thanks again, christopher_best.

As requested, I am responding only to PRO’s R2

Burden of Proof

Let’s remember that the burden is on PRO to prove both the feasibility and factuality of the Flood as described in Genesis 6-9.  CON agrees with PRO’s assertion:

“Obviously, Con does not have a burden of proof other than proving my evidence false or irrelevant.”

Resolution: Scientific, historic, and metaphysical evidence indicates the Biblical Noah's Flood could have, and did happened on Earth.

Pro doubles his burden by extending Flood arguments as both feasible and true. 
  • If the Flood were feasible, no supernatural agency would be necessary to account for impossible events and so  PRO’s first argument (God did the flood) unneeded. Because PRO begins his arguments with the necessity of divine agency, we can be confident that PRO shares CONs view that the Flood is not particularly believable without supernatural intervention.
  • If the Flood were unfeasible but true, PRO’s insistence on “could have” might prove the supernatural but then PRO loses the debate.  That is, although the Flood did happen, it could not have happened theoretically and PRO has failed the half of the resolution.
  • If the Flood were feasible but false, PRO fails the second half of the resolution.
  • If the Flood were unfeasible and untrue (as we’ve established) PRO fails both halves of the resolution.
In R1, CON offered to simplify the resolution to “Noah’s Flood is proven true” which would have lightened the load re: feasibility.  PRO rejected this offer in R2, increasing his exposure.
SCIENTIFIC
Argument 1: The Earth contains too little water to Flood the Earth to the degree that the Bible recorded.
  • PRO objects to CON’s assumption that Earth’s geology & geography operated roughly the same 5000 years ago as today.  This is not, however, CON’s assumption but a first principle of science:
“Uniformitarianism, is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.  It refers to invariance in the metaphysical principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of cause and effect throughout space-time, but has also been used to describe spatiotemporal invariance of physical laws..” [1]  
It was PRO’s task to show how well-studied geological processes could speed up exponentially and temporarily merely to justify biblical events and then return to steady states in the space of one year.
  • PRO points out that Genesis makes no distinction between mountains and hills undermining PRO’s case.  PRO draws massive geologic inferences from a short myth that makes no geological distinction between say, the lush lowland hills of Mt. Carmel and the glaciated peaks of Mt. Ararat.  The writers of Genesis almost certainly shared none of our modern experience of true mountains, with tree-lines and ice caps. Therefore, the writers of Genesis had too little geographic knowledge to credibly claim that other parts of the world were impacted by flood.
    • Further, pointing out the ambiguities in translating Ancient Hebrew does not improve PRO’s scientific assertions, which rely exclusively on the accuracy of those ambiguities.
  • PRO falsely claims that geologists have no cause for Pangea’s breakup.  In fact, the cyclical nature of supercontinents has become well established over the past 50 years by examination of the geologic record. [2]  In short, the continental crust’s insulating properties create hot spots in the Earth’s lithosphere breaking up the supercontinent and driving the pieces away until they form a new supercontinent every 300-500 million years.[3]  If creationists have any explanation for the formation & break up of Rodinia and Pannotia supercontinents before Pangea, this researcher does not find it.
  • PRO  asserts without evidence that  pre-tectonic land is so smooth that raising the oceans  a mere 3,5000 ft would cover every hill and vale. Would that not also suggest that a pre-tectonic ocean is likewise quite shallow?  If the average depth of the ocean were 1750ft (half the deepest 3500 ft depths) and the surface land/water ratio still at about 1:2, that would suggest about 7 times less water on the super smooth Earth than today’s Earth with average ocean depths of about 12,100 ft. [3]  Beyond the need to make Genesis 6-9 true is there any evidence for this very smooth Earth PRO suggests? 
  • PRO cites Snelling’s claims that the ocean floors were replaced with hot lava to account for the  waters’ rise. We’ve seen in R2 that the energy required to crack and move the continents in the space of days would exceed the heat of the Sun but to this PRO would add shallow oceans flowing cool over lava beds covering 2/3rds of the Earth at 2012 degrees Fahrenheit.  Left unanswered is what prevents the rapid evaporation of the oceans Let’s remember that in the last round PRO left 99 7/10ths of the worlds species to fend for themselves in this environment How is life persisting when 2/3rds of the Earth is transformed into burning rock?    Let’s remember that PRO’s own sources contradicted Snelling’s fanciful assertions repeatedly in the last round.
  • PRO asserts that marine fossils in the limestone of Everest are evidence of Flood, but
    • The Indian plate moves North at  about 67mm/year without a meteor blast, demonstrating that no such violence is necessary to explain the uplift. [4]
    • Why only ancient, tiny invertebrate marine fossils?  If the Himalayas uplifted just after most modern animals were killed why wouldn’t the Himalyan limestone also contain fossils of modern fish, modern trees?  Why only microscopic fossils that went extinct roughly 500 million year ago? [5]
Argument 2: The water would have to come in the form of a sphere of rain that would be half the size of the Moon. 
 
PRO argues that sufficient water might be brought up from the mantle to cover the Earth.  PRO cites a creation.com website which sites another creation.com website which sites Bergeron’s 1997 article in New Scientist, Deep Waters. [6]
  • The actual citation is behind a paywall unavailable to CON.
  • The second creation.com article reports that Bergeron describes a ‘sudden outpouring of water, Noah-style’ as unlikely.
  • Bergeron’s theoretical estimates of  a reservoir 10-30 times all surface water have since been scaled back significantly to “about the same amount of water as our oceans”, as the same magazine, New Scientist, reported in 2017. [7]
  • The mechanism for squeezing all of this water out of the mid-Mantle and “fountaining” that water up through 250 miles of molten rock is not explained.  Again, massive expenditures of energy are unaccounted for.
Argument 3: If that water existed and was raining down, the atmosphere would be toxic to those on the Ark.
 
  • The heat and toxicity arguments for 40 days of continuous, global precipitation stand whether or not all water required to cover the Earth precipitated. Genesis 7:12 states - “And the rain was upon the Earth forty days and forty nights.” [8]
  •  
Argument 4: Ice cores give no evidence of a Flood.
 
  • PRO assumes scientists are counting layers of snow & melt but this is false.  Ice layers are counted by annual dust deposits and seasonal differences in electrical conductivity.  [9]
  • The airplanes landed near the relatively warm shores of Greenland on an active glacier, essentially a moving river of ice.  No ice core samples would be taken from such a dynamic environment. [10]
  • Ice core data going back 12,000 years requires very close agreement between at least 3 independent methods of annual climate data (ocean floor cores, etc) [9]
Argument 5: Old plants refute Flood.
 
  • Dendrochronologists have been counting tree rings (and accounting for seasonal differences, droughts, fires, etc) since the ancient Greeks.  As with ice cores, a single tree is a data point, thousands of tree rings corroborating global climatic patterns is science.
    • The 80,000 yr age estimate for Pando’s is based on counting the number of determinable iterations of clones by counting branches in the root system and multiplying that number against the known clone rate for local aspen colonies (about 75 years in Pando’s case). [11]
    • Barnes 1975 matches fossilized aspen leaves dating from as far back as one million years to living colonies with matching clone phenotypes (leaf patterns develop identical phenotypes in clones). [12]
    • While hardly precision measurements, both studies or either easily refutes a flood at even the lowest end of estimation, as is true dendrochronologically of a number of other very old species.
 
Argument 6: Our genetics are too diverse.
 
Carter, et al. 2018 assertions that a common Y-chromosomal Adam (Noah) from less than 5000 years ago can be extrapolated “using several different methods” of analysis against data generated by the 1000 genome project is not peer-reviewed and contradicts the core of peer-reviewed data regarding “Y-chromosal Adam”  In fact, a 2012 discovery of a chromosomal outlier has recently doubled the estimated dating for the last common male ancestor from 140,000 Ya to 338,000Ya. [13]
 
The “long bottleneck” referenced by Carter estimates small  populations as low a 2000 individuals enduring for tens of thousands of years before improved migration & expansion beginning 200,000 years ago. [14]
 
History:
 
Argument 1: Genesis is unreliable because of strange claims.

Genesis 6:2  PRO argues that Sons of God should not be interpreted literally but a figurative plaudit for Godly men.  Aren’t these the same men that God will destroy? If these “Sons of God” were also worthy, why weren’t they saved?  The point is that the text is ambiguous, strange, and unreliable. PRO’s argument does not improve his position.
 
Giants- Again we establish uncertainty in the text and introduce new strangeness (Angels mating with humans?)
 
Noah lived 950 years.  PRO still fails to offer any scientific, historical, or metaphysical evidence that any human can live past 122 years old
 
PRO argues that justifying slavery does not diminish Genesis 9’s accuracy as an account of a magic curse that dooms many of Noah’s descendents to eternal slavery.  If slavery is unjust, then Noah is unjust and God’s salvation of Noah mistaken. If slavery is justified by Genesis, then Noah may be just in God’s eyes but God remains mistaken.
Argument 2: The Flood story was a reiteration of some older myth.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is estimated to have been written about 2100 BC [15]
Genesis was first authored 1500-1600 years after. [16]

Metaphysical:

Argument 1: The Flood account was meant non-literally.

Many would argue that the fruit of the tree of knowledge was obviously non-literal, since there is no evidence of knowledge trees in existence today, for example.

PRO himself has argued that “Sons of God” and “Giants walked the Earth” should not be interpreted literally but denies CONS right to interpret figuratively.

Claim 2: The Flood story delegitimizes all other cultures.

CON agrees that cultural delegitimization is not a scientific or historical argument but it is metaphysically valid. (Shouldn’t our Gods reflect our values, etc.)

Claim 3: The God of the Flood is not worthy of worship because of his utter failure.
CON agrees that cultural delegitimization is not a scientific or historical argument but it is metaphysically valid. (Shouldn’t our Gods reflect our values, etc.)

If voters agree that PRO has failed to offer convincing scientific, historic, and metaphyscial evidence that the Flood was both feasible and factual, then voters should vote for CON.

Thanks in advance for voters kind consideration.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism
[2]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987112001570#bib64
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent_cycle
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas
[5]https://www.volcanocafe.org/fossils-of-mount-everest/
[6]https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15520974-900-deep-waters/
[7]https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133963-theres-as-much-water-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/
[8]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6-9&version=KJV
[9]https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf
[10]https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a22575917/wwii-p-38-discovered-under-300-feet-of-ice-in-greenland/
[11]http://discovermagazine.com/1993/oct/thetremblinggian285
[12]https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6155&context=aspen_bib
[15]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
[16]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis

Added:
--> @Dynasty
I don't think you read my argument. Not that this is my opinion, I just find the topic fun, but there are no fallacies to be found. Unless you are saying that Oromagi should not have been able to point out what he claimed was a fallacy, which I think isn't fair personally, but it was an option
Instigator
#37
Added:
--> @christopher_best
You should have adding "No logical fallacies" on your rules list.
#36
Added:
--> @Ragnar
I appreciate your time and effort into voting, even if we do not see eye-to-eye on this one. If you need a vote, don't hesitate to ask.
Instigator
#35
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Thanks for your time & effort, Ragnar. Much appreciated.
Contender
#34
Added:
--> @oromagi, @christopher_best
---RFD---
Interpreting the resolution:
I want to just say ‘Noah’s flood = factual,’ but this resolution is a jumble of different separate (but related) cases to not be understated. Key thing is it is not about weak likelihood, it is about a strong degree of certainty (at least to within each of the proposed measurement standards). Or as con puts it “Noah's flood is proven true.”
…So I write this section before reading debates, but in the final round pro seemed to try to move the goalpost to generally that a worldwide flood may have happened (and that Noah’s is just the best historical record). If that was the originally intended debate, Noah would have not been mentioned in the resolution, nor so much in R1.
#33
Added:
Gist:
This was just way too much to try to fit into one debate.
1. Definitions
They are agreed (surprised the year one was agreed to, but oh well).
Pro, technically it’s not a concession unless you previously disagreed, as is you just agree.
2. Possibilities
By agreeing to judge this, I have agreed to the possibility, making this contention slightly redundant unless Con prior to R1 made a contention about impossibility. Double redundancy comes from if something is proven to have happened, it is automatically possible.
3. Water
The “1,085,166,768 cubic miles of water” indeed seems unlikely. Some back and forth, talk about the ocean floor spontaneously turning to magma pushing all the water up, and other things that seem in the realm of proving a vague possibility instead of proving that it actually happened.
Worse was the salt issue, that all the land recovered would have been submerged in saltwater for an extended period, killing the plants we enjoy today.
That various ice samples from around the world do not indicate a flood, gets a bit weird with in the inclusion of magma probably having melted them all… But assuming they’re not accurate over longer periods of time, when trying to prove said flood happened in such a narrow window of a few thousand years of recent human activity (the recorded history argument which was accepted), it becomes suspect that they would all be that inaccurate.
#32
Added:
4. Human Life Span
Originally started by pro under the science heading, and refuted under the history heading… It’s important enough to get its own. Given how doubtful it is for a 600 year old to build much of anything, I am surprised this started as a key scientific argument from pro.
Pro claims humans live greater than 950 years (the reported life of Noah), con uses a source to say we physically reach our upper limit around 150. That is the end of it inside this debate.
Pro’s very last comment is: “I still have shown historical record for long-lived humans, and biological possibilities regarding them.” Even using word searches, I could not find this within the debate.
5. Boat Design
This is oddly where pro took the major source hit. When trying to over hype the Ark he quoted information about the shape being the best ever as reported by a scientist, but con went to the trouble of reading the actual paper the scientist wrote which contradicted that quote. While con did well in explaining even that scientist was not peer reviewed, I am going to accept that the boat design was possible (honestly infering details about hamster style water bottles, it’s odd but I just don’t consider this section important).
6. God
This came up a bit, but let me set the record straight: If he’s great or sucks is off topic.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. There were more, but there was already way too much doubt for it to come close to being closed with in depth talk of ocean craters.
#31
Added:
Sources: Con
Bible of course, that’s not really considered a source on these… A key problem came up. Pro almost exclusively used AnsweringGensis.org, but it was proven to be lying (the Dr. Hong paper, which pro never defended). Since the source lied about what Dr. Hong wrote, it is no longer credible on any related matters. Without backup sources, pro lost massive ground on the debate by putting all his eggs in that basket.
Con on the other hand used a wide variety of sources (most often Wikipedia, which I consider informational, but in this case well played…), but he is mostly getting the point for challenging pro’s sole source. One big thing he did was proving the age limits on humans on scientific grounds, to include why we have a maximal age, which challenges the very possibility of Noah having built the ark hundreds of years after his death.
One source I do give pro some credit for, was the grid about flood legends (https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/flood-legends/). It very well supports that historically the flood in question could have happened (it does not support that it outright did by any standard other than history, and history a little loosely).
S&G: tied, but leaning con.
When trying to attract judges the character limit determines our commitment. We agree to read up to 20k per round, finding various links inside to the arguments surpassing that does not endear us.
Also bolding whole paragraphs of your text without reason is not charming. I suggest using this for in line quotations to ease the distinction between your words and someone elses, but not your own for more than a couple key words at a time. … Basic rule on this is that if everything were maximally important, nothing would above average importance.
Conduct: tied
Had con not seemed to approve the character limit violations, this would go to con without a question. As is, con gets a note of respect in this area, but one that does not carry points.
#30
Added:
finished reading, great debate, I would vote but I like one member and not so much the other so I would be biased
#29
Added:
--> @Cogent_Cognizer
I appreciate the analysis and kind words! Oromagi gave me a little run for my money in all fairness.... However, I doubt I will get the win on this one, since only about 2 people that I know of will actually vote on this, and they both have hard times leaving their personal scrutinization out of the votes sometimes.
Instigator
#28
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Understood. Oromagi gave me quite the run for my money
Instigator
#27
Added:
--> @christopher_best
I must say, you did really well with properly recognizing when fallacies are actually made and when they are not. You would be a worthy contender against me. I get the feeling I disagree a ton with you, but you did really well here.
#26
Added:
I would like to vote on this actually, but I don't meet the requirements yet. Not sure I'm going to in time to vote.
While I personally would agree with the contender's conclusions, I find that the instigator is correct of false arguments from the contender. Indeed, the instigator did use a type of circular reasoning. The issue here is that many fallacies have a form of them which is logical, and pro used this. For example, slippery slope and ad populum both have logical versions of them. If someone provides sufficient evidence from the butterfly effect A, to the slippery slope argument Z, as in evidence from each step proving true causation(which by the way is something most people don't know how to prove properly) then it's not a fallacy. It just often is when people use the argument since most people don't seem to know how to prove causation, so it's more often than not the slippery slope fallacy, but a slippery slope can sometimes be a legitimate argument. Same thing with argumentum ad populum. For topics that are not subject to popularity, which this topic is one of them: whether the earth was flooded, it's a fallacy. However, some topics are subject to popularity. I.e language. Language's purpose is to properly communicate with other people. So, if you're the only one who thinks the definition of a term means one thing, while the majority or most of society doesn't, well, you're gonna suck at doing language's purpose: effective communication.
So, I really find the instigator's arguments rather convincing. While I have arguments of my own that I think would disprove what pro has said, con didn't present them. So I wouldn't in good conscience vote for con even though I agree with their conclusions. In this particular case, pro had better premises, the con had false premises. In argumentation, that's what matters more for who debated well, Pro's conclusion is false, in my opinion, but (s)he debated it well.
#25
Added:
--> @oromagi, @christopher_best
Came back... I'll try to post a RFD tonight or tomorrow morning (I have things to do with my day). It's looking like arguments and sources to con, but I have to re-read pro's closing round when free from the influence of a headache.
Key bit of advice is of course use a smaller scope (perhaps break this one into six separate small debates?), and stay inside the character limit.
#24
Added:
Started to grade this, got to the point of human beings having a 600 year lifespan in the science section... I'll try again later.
#23
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1127/comment_links/16560