Instigator / Pro
28
1485
rating
92
debates
45.65%
won
Topic
#1509

Noah's Flood, as described in Genesis, did not happen

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
6
Better sources
8
4
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

David
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
25,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
18
1538
rating
4
debates
75.0%
won
Description

Topic

Resolved: The Global Flood, as described in Genesis, did not happen

Rounds:

1. Opening Arguments
2. Rebuttals
3. Defense
4. Closing arguments/Summary

The burden of proof is shared. It is my burden of proof to show that the Flood story did not and could not have happened and con's burden is to prove that it did happen. For purposes of this debate, we will be taking Genesis literally like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministry International take it. In other words, this flood was less than 4500 years ago and contained 2 of each "kind" of animal, including dinosaurs.

The time for arguments is two weeks. Good luck.

Rules:
1. No K's
2. No forfeits
3. No new arguments in the final speeches

-->
@David
@Patmos
@Lazarous

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Patmos // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Points Awarded: 3:0; 3 points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
Votes need not be their own debates. While brief and not touching on every contention, it indeed shows enough depth of understanding to the arguments presented.
**************************************************

-->
@Patmos

Thank you for taking the time to read the debate and cast a vote!

---RFD---
In short, pro showed that the young earth model left the flood an impossibility with our anthropological record.

Interpreting the resolution:
This is a pretty specific setup... “this flood was less than 4500 years ago and contained 2 of each "kind" of animal, including dinosaurs.”
This puts a strong BoP on pro, that something simply did not happen. So for con to beat him, it just needs to rise to the level of probable.

Formulations (I can upload this somewhere if you'd like):
These are the calculations I made for the time and population estimates, which determine the feasibility or infeasibility within the changing years given within the debate.
Doubling rate sum population Doubling rate sum population
BCE years ago after flood /150 8^ /mile /feet /40 8^ /mile /feet
Pro's original 2406 4425 29.5 4.37678E+26 2.22284E+18 4.20993E+14
Con's original 2472 4491 29.94 1.09273E+27 5.54969E+18 1.05108E+15
Pyramids 1875 3894 597 3.98 3929.145833 1.9955E-05 3.77936E-09 14.925 3.01036E+13 152887.6269 28.95598995

Revised pyramids after founding 390,100 miles in Egypt
Egypt founded 2109 4128
first pyramid 1875 3894 234 1.56 25.63423608 6.5712E-05 1.24454E-08 5.85 191,901 0.491926789 9.3168E-05

1. History
A. Year
Got to say, while I’m normally a numbers guy, the description calls for less than 4500 years ago. If it’s BCE 2472 or BCE 2406 doesn’t matter in the greater context. Round to 4500 instead of 4491 years, and no one is going to nitpick.

B. Population rebound
Pro’s path here was somewhat indirect. The exponential doubling would have 5.55x10^18 people per every mile, or 1.05x10^15 for every foot of space on the earth’s surface (including water). This isn’t how population growth works...
Pro’s real point was just that we have recorded history which called for more people than are available in early years if we believe the flood happened.

C. The Pyramids
So on this one, I am skipping ahead to the refined time estimate con insisted upon, and pro agreed to. The population available across the whole planet would be 3929 (not a mere 48, which was his claim, but I’m redoing the math with con’s update)... Still, not enough to build those monstrosities, or even have a thriving slave cast in one corner of the world.
Con counters that Egypt started in BCE 2109, with a fresh group of only 8. Which 234 years later when they build the first pyramid, had a whole 25 people to do it. However, since this doesn’t give the desired answer, we apparently must double the doubling rate until it does. The population of the earth apparently now doubles every 40 years (in fairness, that site did go on to say 40)... So by this revision, Egypt had 5.85 exponential doublings, for a population of 191,901 when they build the first pyramid. ... Since con’s Harvard source insists it wasn’t slave labor, they were not willing to work themselves to death.

I am going to ignore the carbon dating issues on this.

This area casts some doubt on the flood fitting within the required timeline, but I give con credit for proving that this alone leaves the existence of the first pyramid within the realm of possibly without contradicting the flood.

D. Other Buildings
A very good building upon the previous contention, to show not only were generally greater populations needed to build these things than would be available, but that greater populations needed to exist all over. Further they apparently were all hired by Egypt for the pyramids rather than being elsewhere growing their populations...

One such work was apparently made with less than 400 people, the Tower of Babel, and the amazing crane technology from it was then used on the Pyramids... I am not seeing any source with any information to prove this thing existed, or even any records of ancient Egyptian cranes which were taken from it after it was completed to use on the pyramids.

Regarding the dating estimates, lines like “This discovery would have come as no surprise if the Bible had been used to establish these dates” lower the credibility of disputing anything. You can’t assume things don’t exist because they don’t fit into your worldview, or that they do exist despite lack of evidence when needed to justify your worldview.

2. The Ice Age
More of a support point than anything else, summarized as “It seems like whoever was left alive had far more stuff to worry about than building pyramids and emigrating to the Americas.”
On this one con did not wait a couple rounds to respond but did a bizarrely disjointed reply trying to prove it happened after the flood, which pro already agreed. It was like con could not comprehend lack of disagreement, so launched into a counter speech he prepared for someone else.

3. Genetics
Got to say it, pro could have made his case here a lot stronger with a more direct pointing to the genetic diversity seen in humans today... which at an obvious superficial level is to say skin colors.

This gets into damage done 100 generations ago, which we still see today, but even by con’s 40 year generational doubling rate, the entire population of the earth is only just about at its 15th, if we believe in the flood.

On this one con wanted to talk about the young earth independent of the flood, basically dropping the points relevant to his case. This debate is about a global flood 4500 years ago; even if the earth were only 10,000 years old, this would not prove the actual event this debate is about.

This point was well concluded with: “If all of us had a huge bottleneck like the one in the flood, it would have wiped out all genetic diversity.” Which is against con’s unfounded belief in perfect genetics.

4. Young Earth
This debate is about one event. I mean dinosaurs are cool, but even if we assume the world only 10,000 years, that would not suggest a flood happened 4500 years ago. This leaves all the complaints about soft tissue and such irrelevant to the resolution (which is negated if the evidence were to suggest the flood, but it having occurred any time over 10,000 years ago).

5. Rapid Erosion
Support point for the young earth. Some things happened rapidly. I would probably care more for this area if it didn’t keep relying on the same website with a singular goal. Could have been improved with the respectability of a .gov or .edu site for support.

6. Feasibility of the Biblical account
Back to something interesting... Okay this seems to be a defense point, to a line of attack with did not occur. This is a common problem with too much prep work, as copy/pasted what you pre-wrote expecting those lines of argument, do not always line up with what actually did occur.

A. No one says Noah was restricted to building it with his own two hands, no tools, and no help. ... Correction, pro does say that, and points out that it took Noah 120 years to build it... I have a hard time taking bits like this seriously, given that humans don’t live that long.
B. 1400 to 7000 kinds of animals; which seems doubtful, but good to have a minimal target... I think con was building a case that even less were needed because they could evolve after leaving the ark.
C. It lasted a year. Ok.

7. space requirements
My eyes are glazing over on this one. I’ll just trust that it was well done and showed the feasibility to this angle of the case.

8. Water
Yes, a global flood is a global flood. Not trying to Kritik it into saying it was a Flood which only happened in Noah’s mind (or only his yard... whatever), doesn’t need to be stated or expanded upon.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points. I did lose patience at a certain point (as can be seen above with less and less being written on the points), but I am still voting because the points I analyzed at full depth are deterministic to the outcome. You could prove dinosaurs are flourishing today, and it would not change it. You could prove humans live 1000 years on average, and it would not change it. If we assume the arc is entirely feasible, that doesn’t override the lack of time afterward for the limited survivors to build all those ancient wonders; nor does it allow the variety of genetic problems seen on the planet today with origins older than the flood but somehow not affecting every survivor.

Side note: God is not the great deceiver; he does not plant evidence for our eyes and then demand we ignore it to have faith that his creations are lies he planted to make us doubt him... The FSM does that, but not God.

I mentioned this before in the comment section, but a debate like this might be better handled as a campaign of debates (like 5 or more different debates to the theme, each centered on a point... The water requirements of the arc being feasible as an example, or even just how many animals should be assumed to have been on it, if the 8 people or whatever could handle the workload as an other...).

Sources:
Books are a lovely thing, but as they are not readily verifiable, they should never be used for vital claims such as how Egypt is a young country. I doubt either of you read all those books this debate, so please just direct people to the websites which then listed them.

The genetics are the area which is motivating me here. The perfect genetics of the Ashkenazi Jewish population, suffering from a genetic bottleneck not seen in most other populations, not only ruined a good portion of cons case, but was left uncontested. I’m a human being, I care about my fellow man more so than a Strawmanning of cheetahs.

-->
@blamonkey

Fix it. Hopefully that's better this time

-->
@blamonkey

Oh yeah, no worries man!

-->
@David
@Lazarous

This [bleeping] debate... I swear I'll get a vote in.

-->
@DynamicSquid

I'm sorry. I don't mean to keep on taking down your votes when you clearly are trying. I'm sort of obligated to though.

-->
@blamonkey

Got it

Additionally, the sources points need to be explained better.

None of the sources were analyzed individually and it was unexplained why Con failed to utilize his stats effectively.
************************************************************************

-->
@DynamicSquid

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: [5 points to Pro]

>Reason for Decision: Cool debate. Good job both you of!
Pro -
I liked how your formatting was neat and organized, and your contentions were very well laid out. You also laid out many facts and sources to back up your claims.
However, I would of liked to see some more direct clash with what Con said.
Also for Pro, dropping Con's case for a "young earth" damaged your text in a way. You should of disproved the flood in a young earth, and disproved the flood in an old earth (4.5 billion years old). Don't be afraid the challenge Con's definitions.
Con -
"everything can come from nothing [..] origin of the universe is quite a supernatural event"
We can't simply say god is the answer, but Pro doesn't refute this well enough, allowing Con to shape this round.
"no tenable explanation for this extraordinary phenomenon"
This has actually been proven. Also, I want a pet T-Rex!
Con also provides facts about how the Ark is feasible, however I find that Pro refutes this well enough.
Con also used sources, however very few of which actually add value to the debate.
Both -
This topic is hard. Mainly because it deals with lots of extra side topics like the existence of god. However, arguing for the existence of god would be off-topic, so I know how this could be a gray area. Here's my advice.
Instead of accepting {A} as true and basing all your arguments off {A}, you should instead present arguments if {A} were to be true, and arguments if {A} were to be false, therefore covering all scenarios.
End.

>Reason for Mod Action: Per the Voting Guidelines, the voter must survey and weigh both arguments and counter-arguments. While some arguments were surveyed adequately, others were not. For example:

"Pro doesn't refute this well enough..." Why does Pro not refute the argument well enough?

-->
@Barney

I agree. The subject really can't be done justice in a single debate.

-->
@David
@Lazarous

I have not forgotten this debate, I've just had a couple unexpectedly very long days...

One immediate bit of feedback I'll give, is that a debate like this might be better served separated into a series of smaller debates for the directly connected sub-topics.

-->
@Barney

Sure, no problem!

So I felt like both sides used sources that directly supported a statement, rather than an idea. I feel like this is unnecessary and leads to overuse of sources (Trent xD). If something takes like 5 seconds to google, then a source doesn't need to be provided.

However, Pro's sources were arguments themselves, while Con had to manually tie its sources back to the topic. In this case, Pro used sources more efficiently and effectively.

In addition, upon further investigation of Con's sources, the websites were very biased, and based their information off little to no scientific evidence at all.

So that's why I feel like Pro won the sources.

-->
@Barney

Sure, no problem. Give me a sec

-->
@DynamicSquid

I haven't had coffee yet, but your vote looks like it is short on a justification for sources. You may want to amend that on.

To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.

-->
@GeneralGrant

As someone whose already made it deeper into this debate than I, what is your opinion of cited the MtDNA genetic damage?

At long last, I'm through the first half of this debate...

-->
@David

I hold the flood to be a local flood.

-->
@GeneralGrant

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: GeneralGrant // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro

>Reason for Decision: "I like how Con left Pro without being able to defend the problems with dating methods showing different time results. When Pro couldn't answer about different result in dating methods they stooped to criticizing sources."

>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must do the following things according to the Voting Policy:

1. Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
2. Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
3. Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points

While the voter mentioned individual arguments, he never weighed them to explain how they arrived at their voting decision. Additionally, he never explained why other arguments need not be weighed. Therefore, pursuant to the guidelines, this vote must be removed.
************************************************************************

-->
@GeneralGrant

Quality is what gets votes removed, not which side was voted for.

-->
@GeneralGrant

Just mentioned each side's main arguments and why you believe one side's were more convincing.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Well maybe they will let it stay since I voted for Pro. Hahahahahaha
What do you have to do so your vote stays. Write a 10 page report?

-->
@GeneralGrant

Your vote will likely be taken down. Also, I think you meant to vote for Con based on your reasoning.

-->
@Barney

I am interested as well.

-->
@Barney

Yes please

-->
@David
@Lazarous

Do either of you want the math formulations I'm doing as I read this?

This seems a difficult to claim yet the execution or direction of facts seems simple. I have read nothing but I think that there should be a clear way to state this claim. To be 100% certain that a thing did not happen will not happen but I think I will look at this for a preponderance of evidence or if this is likely true. Statements may change my thinking.

With 8 arguments at 25K each, I'll keep my fingers crossed that someone else votes on this.

Genesis 7:20 tells us that the flood waters covered the highest mountain peak by twenty feet. This would be a miracle in itself if the flood was local.

Genesis 9:15 says, “Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life” (NIV). This clarifies that (a) the flood could not be local since it destroyed all life, and (b) creatures have died in local floods many times since, so, if the flood was local, God broke his promise. Clearly the context does not allow for a local flood.

Furthermore, a local Noah’s flood does not make logical sense. Noah and the animals could have migrated out of the flood zone. God put Noah through a terrible lot of trouble building an ark.

The Biblical context is quite clear. The flood could not have been local.

-->
@David

My view is that the flood was a local flood.

I think this is the longest argument I've ever written.

-->
@Lazarous

Yup, and jews wonder why they have been ridiculed

the flood myths were based on actua floods but of course they did not cover the whole world

-->
@Dr.Franklin

I think it is fair to point out that most Jews consider themselves Jewish by blood and ritual only. They treat their rituals kind of like Santa Claus and the Easter bunny in that, they are traditional, or an excuse to celebrate. Believe me, I mean no offense to the Jewish communities that do take their rituals seriously.

-->
@David

So why would you believe in myth

-->
@Dr.Franklin

It's clearly mythology, most likely flood stories are based on real localized floods.

-->
@David

Then what would happen in the bible instead.

-->
@Dr.Franklin

Most Jews do not take Noah's flood literally.

so much for being a jew

-->
@zedvictor4

Thank you, my friend.

-->
@David

Love your opening argument.

-->
@Christen

I just gave my final speech in the other debate

Virtuoso

Are you sure you should be spreading yourself too thin? You're debating me, another person, AND Lazarous too. You can't be doing so many debates all at once!

-->
@PressF4Respect

Lol. I'll wait for a YEC to actually accept this.

-->
@David

I was going to accept this debate just to see what it's like to argue from the theistic perspective, but then I realized...
you know what, I wanna keep my 1500+ rating.