Instigator / Pro
28
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Debate Participants
-Pro: Virtuoso
-Con: Lazarous

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

Burden of Proof: Shared

I humbly submit my vote...

Better Spelling and Grammar
-Both sides exhibited excellent S&G throughout the debate. Pro recommended in his final round that this vote should be left a tie. I agree.
-Vote: Tie

Better Conduct
-Both sides showed good conduct throughout the debate. Pro recommended in his final round that this vote should be left a tie and I agree.
-Vote: Tie

Better Sources
-Even Though Pro claims that "Answers in Genesis" and "Creation Ministry International" are unreliable sources, I don't have a problem with Con citing them in the debate.
--Reason number 1; Pro referred to both sources in the description, so why wouldn't Con use them as sources?
--Reason number 2; Since Con is trying to argue from the Biblical side of the debate than it would logically flow that Con would use sources sympathetic to their side of the debate.
-Both sides did an excellent job citing sources supporting their side of the argument.
-Vote: Tie

Better Argument
Note: I usually like to break the arguments down round by round, but in the interest of brevity I will hit points that stood out to me in the debate and then issue a vote at the end.

-Point 1: Other historical buildings' argument.
--Pro brings up an excellent argument about the Pyramids existing before the flood and makes an argument about "other historical buildings."
--Con responds by rebutting the Pyramids argument but does not mention anything about the "other historical buildings" argument made by Pro.
--Pro calls Con on this lack of rebuttal.
--My take on this is if Pro would have specified another historical building in his "other historical building" argument. Pro does not do this and instead lists a source and expects Con to go that source and rebut the other historical buildings listed. I feel that this is an undue burden for Pro to place on Con. If Pro wanted Con to rebut the other historical buildings' argument then Pro should have specified other historical buildings.
-Point 1 goes to Con.

-Point 2: Building the Ark argument.
--Con made an argument that more than just Noah built the ark.. His sons and other people from the general population could have helped.
--Pro calls Con on this and states that the Bible only says that Noah built the Ark.
--Con does not rebut Pro's response.
--My thoughts are that Pro made an excellent challenge against Con's argument, which Con dropped.
--Point 2 goes to Pro.

-Point 3: Space requirements argument (Water and Food)
--Con explains with calculated amounts how there would have been enough space on the Ark to water and feed every living thing. Con uses Sheep as an example.
--Pro rebuts Con's argument by saying "those calculations are way off," but yet doesn't give a counter reason why Cons' calculations are off.
--My take is that Pro's rebuttal against Con's argument is weak.
--Point 3 goes to Con

-Point 4: Sexual Maturity of Ark Animals Argument
-- Con states that in order for larger size animals to fit on the ark they would need to be a younger age.
--Pro responds by saying that genesis 7:2 uses the word "mate" and this clearly means the animals were sexually mature and couldn't be juveniles.
--Con responds by saying that Pro's interpretation of Genesis is "strange," which I disagreed with. Pro, in my opinion, made a fair assumption of the verse. I do however agree that Con's reference to the Hebrew word leaves enough wiggle room to give "mate" a different eaning then sexually mature.
--Point 4 is a tie

-Point 5: Ice Age Argument
--Pro makes an argument that Creationist claim that an Ice Age that occurred after the Flood and lasted for 700 years, which would be a challenge for people to build pyramids and emigrate to the Americas. Pro states that building pyramids and emigrating would not be what survivors would be worried about.
--Con responds by stating that the Ice Age would create bridges for people to migrate to the Americas.
--Pro counters by saying that Con did not respond to his main point which was why would they build pyramids or migrate under harsh environments.
--My take is that Pro has a legitimate point and rightfully called Con on it.
--Point 5 goes to Pro

Final Vote
-I had other points I wanted to make, but it was a back and forth, so I stopped at 5 Both sides gave great arguments and both sides made great rebuttals. I am finding it hard to pick a winner and therefore am issue a tie.

Final comments
-I am a Youing Earth believer and a Creationist and so I sympathized more with Con's position, but I was very impressed with Pro's arguments and challenges. Great job by both debaters! Well done!

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I'm awarding arguments for this debate to pro for the following reasons.
1. con does not sufficiently answer pro's argument that carbon dating is a more reliable method of dating fossils than examining tissue.
2. pro effectively dismantles con's proposed Young Earth model as it relates to a global flood. particularly as it relates to population growth. IE: the human population should not have been able to rebound from a near extinction-level event as quickly as it would have had to for the flood to have happened.
3. Con does not sufficiently answer pro's argument that there were numerous civilizations and buildings that existed before and after the flood with no sign of having been completely submerged by water and having the population wiped out.

These three reasons are in my opinion sufficient to award arguments to pro.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1509/comment_links/23821

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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

ROUND ONE INSTIGATOR

Looks at historical records, and population size.

Also mentions how Egyptian society contradicts the flood.

Analysis past events like the Ice Ages, and how it also contradicts the flood.

Brings up an interesting point about genetics.

ROUND TWO CONTENDER

Defines a model under the assumption that God is real. Using that religious model, a 'Young Earth' is put into place. A 'Young Earth' is troubling to this debate for many reasons (and I have SO much to say about this, but I'm judging not debating), however, Pro agrees to this definition, so all is agreed upon.

Argument made on rock folding, water, gaps, fossils, burial, and erosion. However, a closer examination of the sources used finds that the sources are very religiously biased, with little to no actual scientific evidence provided. They are mostly disproved here (https://biologos.org/articles/flood-geology-and-the-grand-canyon-what-does-the-evidence-really-say).

Provides detailed and accurate numbers to explain the feasibility of the Ark.

Provides detailed information explaining concerns about water related problems.

No clash present.

ROUND TWO INVESTIGATOR

Spends entire text clashing with every argument Con had. Uses numbers and the Bible. Sufficiently done.

My new favourite word: Addendum

ROUND TWO CONTENDER

Argues that the pyramids cannot be dated. Actually they can.

States accurate numbers relating to the construction of the pyramids, like the population at that time.

Gives more information supporting a 'Young Earth', and disproving Pro's historical dating information. This is False. Again, using very biased sources.

ROUND THREE INSTIGATOR

Changes model to agree with Con.

Clashes with Con's argument on population rebound, however, poorly done. More elaboration is needed.

Clashes with Con's argument on historical dating techniques.

Clashes with Con's argument on genetics.

The clash should have been expanded, providing a broader look at Con's arguments.

ROUND THREE CONTENDER

Clashes with Pro's arguments on historical dating techniques. Provides a full in depth analysis, and clashes with every point Pro made. Very well done. Talks about carbon taking, fossils, acid, radiation, and more. Expands by explaining animal fossils in depth. However, once again, used very biased sources, and information from highly religious figures. No concrete facts are presented.

Par example - Dr. Andew Snelling, one of the figures Con mentioned. Upon further investigator of him, he is a highly religious person, and devoted his life to proving the Flood. His education is a PhD in geology, with no experience is history, or archaeology.

Sufficiently supports previous claims about feasibility of the Ark. However again, uses biased figures.

ROUND FOUR

Omitted.

Both sides focused on summarizing the debate, instead of the actual context. It would be unfair to judge this round in terms of actual arguments present.

END

Arguments - Con did provide more compelling arguments, however, used biased/incorrect information to back up those claims
Sources - Pro used scientifically accurate sources, while Con used biased ones.
S&G - No major errors
Conduct - No major errors