CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is Noah's Flood Historically Accurate?
Using evidence such as geographic, biologic, palentologic etc, debate how the myth of noahs flood as described literally in the bible is fact or fake. provide Evidence for claims (duh)
That is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is Noah's flood. Do you have any responses to the scientific inaccuracy of Noah's flood identified by Mr. Nye in the video I posted?
Also, in regards to the link you gave, Bill Nye's comments there were clearly humorous. And yes, if you did research you know know: human activity has led to more extreme weather events in recent years.
And even if he had made an extreme statement here in all seriousness and it was false, that would not invalidate every single one of his claims.
If every single species of land animal on Earth spread out from the landing site of the Ark, today’s living varieties of animals, & their fossilized ancestors would reveal a pattern of dispersal from a single site... which they do not.
Animal and human life on Earth shows far too much genetic diversity to originate from only a single pair of ancestors just a few thousand years ago.
There isn't even enough water on Earth to cover every mountain peak as stated in the fable.
Where the hell is the Ark? The righteous family just walked off of it and.. didn't remember where it was? Didn't bother to mark the spot of the boat that saved all of humanity?
IT DIDN'T WORK. What was the point of sterilizing the world of wickedness.. when there is still wickedness? There is still cruelty and war all over the Earth.
Besides, why would an "all-loving God" murder every single being on the planet (besides Noah's family) when it contradicts his divine love? Don't forget... that would mean.. infants were killed, pregnant women, puppies, small children, kittens, the disabled, seniors, devout followers.... it's ridiculous.
No. Why? Well, how could you fit two of every species on a boat without them killing each other? What about the fish? How did they make it through the freezing cold? How did all the animals get there in time? Etc, etc...
How do you know how to interpret the false story? Your statement was that every story is historically accurate if you interpret it correctly which means you have completely eliminated what the term historically accurate means.
Your statement fits every single story ever told. Maybe you should have extrapolated it to every story to find out that you didn't actually say anything.
You were the one that extended my comment to every other story based on your interpretation of my comment.
I was just saying you could interpret this specific story as historically accurate. While a literal interpretation would be impossible, if we consider a "global" flood as merely a large flood that would have at the time seemed like a global flood, we can actually go back and try to match it to a real flood. Similarly, just because JC was not a divine being, it does not mean we can't interpret his actions through a historical sense. Historicity of the flood and JC are both relevant academic topics.
You were the one that extended my comment to every other story based on your interpretation of my comment.
No, I simply pointed out that your statement is worthless.
I was just saying you could interpret this specific story as historically accurate.
I agree, because you can interpret any story to be historically accurate.
While a literal interpretation would be impossible, if we consider a "global" flood as merely a large flood that would have at the time seemed like a global flood, we can actually go back and try to match it to a real flood.
Then it is inaccurate.
Similarly, just because JC was not a divine being, it does not mean we can't interpret his actions through a historical sense.
But, we can say that the account of his action is not historically accurate since it claims divine properties.
Historicity of the flood and JC are both relevant academic topics.
That doesn't make everything that discusses it to be historically accurate.
No, I simply pointed out that your statement is worthless.
How is it worthless? I answered the question. You were the one to generalize it.
I agree, because you can interpret any story to be historically accurate.
That is not true and also not what my statement implies. A completely made up story will not be historically accurate. An embellished tale crafted for a religious text does not have to be completely made up. It can be based on contemporary events.
Then it is inaccurate.
Perhaps you should look up the historical method and why complete historical accuracy is considered impossible. Even for modern events with complete documentation, there is still disagreement. Humans are not omniscient. Neither are historians.
But, we can say that the account of his action is not historically accurate since it claims divine properties.
That doesn't make everything that discusses it to be historically accurate.
I think you are getting stuck on the idea of "historically accurate". The Bible is often used as a reference for historical events because it includes many actual events. It is the job of the historian to separate the fact from fiction.
You are stuck on the idea that this is a religious text. It is also a historical text filled with embellished recounts of many events.
How is it worthless? I answered the question. You were the one to generalize it.
I explained exactly how it is worthless.
That is not true
It is. I find it slightly strange that it took you three times before you finally challenged that. You can interpret something until it is historically accurate as long as you know what really is historically accurate.
and also not what my statement implies.
It is a fact I was stating.
A completely made up story will not be historically accurate.
Sure it will, as long as it is interpreted properly.
An embellished tale crafted for a religious text does not have to be completely made up. It can be based on contemporary events.
So, the story is historically accurate if you cut out the parts that aren't historically accurate.
Perhaps you should look up the historical method and why complete historical accuracy is considered impossible. Even for modern events with complete documentation, there is still disagreement. Humans are not omniscient. Neither are historians.
Maybe you should look up the word accurate.
I think you are getting stuck on the idea of "historically accurate".
I am sorry that I am stuck on the debate topic.
The Bible is often used as a reference for historical events because it includes many actual events. It is the job of the historian to separate the fact from fiction.
How does that make it accurate?
You are stuck on the idea that this is a religious text.
No, I am stuck on the idea that it is full of fiction which you freely admit.
It is also a historical text filled with embellished recounts of many events.
It looks like you are getting stuck on the word historic.
You can interpret something until it is historically accurate as long as you know what really is historically accurate.
It is impossible to "know what really is historically accurate". Go look up the historical method.
It is. I find it slightly strange that it took you three times before you finally challenged that. You can interpret something until it is historically accurate as long as you know what really is historically accurate.
That is because I assumed you understood the historical method when we first started this discussion. Now that I know you do not, I have re-interpreted your earlier statements.
It is a fact I was stating.
Not every story will be historically accurate purely from interpretation. Your statement is not a fact.
Maybe you should look up the word accurate.
I am sorry that I am stuck on the debate topic.
Since the question was asking about historical accuracy and not accuracy in general, maybe you should read the question again.
From this response, it seems you are actually stuck on "accurate" instead of "historically accurate". So you are not stuck on the debate topic.
How does that make it accurate?
It makes certain accounts historically accurate.
It looks like you are getting stuck on the word historic.
Again. Look up the historical method.
It turns out we are not even arguing the same thing because you do not understand how to qualify historical accuracy.
Come back with an actual response after doing some basic research.
It is impossible to "know what really is historically accurate". Go look up the historical method.
It seems kind of silly to claim that the story of Noah is historically accurate and to believe that it is impossible to know what is historically accurate.
Not every story will be historically accurate purely from interpretation. Your statement is not a fact.
All you have to do is correctly interpret the correct history. What's the problem?
Since the question was asking about historical accuracy and not accuracy in general, maybe you should read the question again.
Please define historical accuracy.
It makes certain accounts historically accurate.
It makes it accurate because it makes it accurate? What?
Again. Look up the historical method.
It says that you can get an accurate picture by comparing multiple inaccurate accounts.
It turns out we are not even arguing the same thing because you do not understand how to qualify historical accuracy.
No, it is you since you are asking me to look at a method that involves bringing together multiple sources.
It seems kind of silly to claim that the story of Noah is historically accurate and to believe that it is impossible to know what is historically accurate.
I was talking about the fact that it was probably based on a real flood. Academics have actually tried to identify the flood the fable was referring to.
All you have to do is correctly interpret the correct history. What's the problem?
And what is the correct history?
Please define historical accuracy.
Look it up.
It says that you can get an accurate picture by comparing multiple inaccurate accounts.
You should look it up again. That does not summarize it at all. Maybe read about the difference between higher and lower criticisms. Now apply that to the usage of the Bible as a source.
No, it is you since you are asking me to look at a method that involves bringing together multiple sources.
If you had actually looked it up, you would know it involves the evaluation of sources as that is generally the most important. The question "Is Noah's Flood Historically Accurate?" is asking us to evaluate a story in the Bible.
I was talking about the fact that it was probably based on a real flood. Academics have actually tried to identify the flood the fable was referring to.
Maybe you should have said that instead of a statement that meant nothing at all.
And what is the correct history?
Exactly why your statement was worthless.
Look it up.
It is the factuality of an account. The account of Noah's flood is not factual, so you are wrong.
You should look it up again. That does not summarize it at all. Maybe read about the difference between higher and lower criticisms. Now apply that to the usage of the Bible as a source.
Just because a story helps you get an accurate picture of history doesn't mean that it is historically accurate. If you have to combine other stories and eliminate parts of the biblical story, by definition the biblical story is not accurate.
If you had actually looked it up, you would know it involves the evaluation of sources as that is generally the most important.
And, any story can be important if interpreted properly.
The question "Is Noah's Flood Historically Accurate?" is asking us to evaluate a story in the Bible.
And, you didn't at all. You just made a statement that was worthless. Go back to your argument and point out the part that actually evaluates the story in the bible.
I guess you could say it was my fault for not writing a longer comment to explain my original comment. You should also realize, it was meant to be a one-liner, a quip.
No clue why this is different from every other one liner on this site including some of yours.
Just because a story helps you get an accurate picture of history doesn't mean that it is historically accurate. If you have to combine other stories and eliminate parts of the biblical story, by definition the biblical story is not accurate.
I told you to look up the historical method. The basic premise behind it is that every historical account is inaccurate. Just because the Bible is full of stories about magic doesn't take away from its usefulness as a source of information. The further you go back, the harder it is to find a contemporary source. The fact that parts of the Bible are ~2000 years old makes it a great source.
And, any story can be important if interpreted properly.
No. A completely made up story cannot be historically accurate or used as a source. It has to be based on something. Let's say I made up a story about some random magical creature using an iPhone 2000 years ago. If we use the historical method to evaluate this story, it will be rejected (at least until we find remnants of a 2000 year iPhone or show that I have been alive for 2000 years; etc.).
I guess you could say it was my fault for not writing a longer comment to explain my original comment. You should also realize, it was meant to be a one-liner, a quip.
No clue why this is different from every other one liner on this site including some of yours.
No, it is your fault for writing something false.
The basic premise behind it is that every historical account is inaccurate.
I agree. You said otherwise. That's why I am arguing with you. I hope this clears up why your one liner was a problem.
I agree. You said otherwise. That's why I am arguing with you. I hope this clears up why your one liner was a problem.
Ok. Let's review the facts.
The debate question: "Is Noah's Flood Historically Accurate?"
My comment: "Depends on how you interpret the story."
How does my comment suggest every historical account is accurate? You are extending my answer beyond the scope of the debate. Only your misinterpretation is false.
My comment: "Depends on how you interpret the story."
You are saying that it is historically accurate.
The basic premise behind it is that every historical account is inaccurate.
Now you say that it isn't historically accurate.
Fact: You have contradicted yourself.
How does my comment suggest every historical account is accurate?
The word interpretation can represent tons of different things. If we conclude that as long as the interpretation leads to the accurate history all stories that helped build the accurate history are in fact historically accurate themselves, you have made every historically account accurate.
You are confusing historical accuracy with accuracy.
It is like how some people confuse scientific theory with theory.
The word interpretation can represent tons of different things. If we conclude that as long as the interpretation leads to the accurate history all stories that helped build the accurate history are in fact historically accurate themselves, you have made every historically account accurate.
I think you are missing the important part of my comment: "the story."
Since the question was referring to the story of Noah's flood, how does "the story" extend to "all stories"?
You can't understand why you are wrong, but you have actually made some sense in this debate. Although, you only made sense when I attacked you, so I deserve the credit. Yay, me.
As described literally by the bible. This would help figure out what happened in the world, not just a region as it says "And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered" Genesis 7:19-20. Now this states that the mountains were covered. If this was just regional the water would not have been able to cover the mountains. As a side note, Genesis itself contains a great deal of information that could disprove some of the most popular scientific theories when taken literally.
I agree that Flewk's statement was incredibly stupid because it ignored the premise of the debate. But, my statement explained what he meant by his statement.
So, the Bible can only explain what the people who wrote it experienced. They can't know about the rest of the world, so it is safe to say it is a regional account of what happened. Since the bible is not the only historical account, it can be combined with other accounts to get a complete picture. He was saying that since it can help get that full picture it provides historical accuracy.
As a side note, Genesis itself contains a great deal of information that could disprove some of the most popular scientific theories when taken literally.
Yes, and common sense too, so it should probably be considered a story.
He also uses the term "historically accurate" which invokes the historical method. No historical account is literally accurate. That is the most important assumption for analyzing any historical event.
The fact that his description contradicts his debate question is his fault not mine. I chose to use the question as the basis for my answer because that is the focus of the debate.
It is a totally accurate account of how Noah, singled handedly build a vessel of sufficient size to accommodate two of every animal on the planet, along with sufficient food to feed them all for months on end. He achieved all this at a time of extremely inclement weather without the aid of mechanized tools, heavy lifting gear, or apprentices. His sound craftsmanship produced a ship able to withstand the angry seas and the roaring tempest. Well done Noah, pity you weren't around when the Titanic was being built.
First, I enjoy you down voting my comment where I correctly pointed out ways in which society is getting better, without responding to it. Classy :P
Second, the flood in modern day Iraq being pointed to as evidence that the story of Noah's flood being historically accurate is akin to those "based on a real story" Hollywood movies. Massive embellishments to the point where it is an entirely different beast.
You mean where you posted your lies about the cause of teen pregnancy going down, or your lie about STD's going down, when they are going up. Maybe you should read up on the may large region wide floods that were happening. So of course early man not having a clue of the natural world except for in his immediate vicinity would right stories about such events and why they may happen.
You mean where you posted your lies about the cause of teen pregnancy going down
I never stated a cause.
or your lie about STD's going down, when they are going up.
STD rates are at a historic low for the Western World, actually.
Maybe you should read up on the may large region wide floods that were happening. So of course early man not having a clue of the natural world except for in his immediate vicinity would right stories about such events and why they may happen.
I have read up on it, and that is my point. Those floods were real, but that does not make the myth of Noah's Flood real. It simply shows that the Bible employs stories based on (as opposed to recordings of) real events.
No, that is what you think the bible says. No where in the bible does it say anything about satellites or claiming to be satellites
Of course not, I was using figurative language. The Bible claims to have an account of existence from the beginning to when the book was written. Since the writers have supposedly communicated with God, they should know said information. In that way, I was comparing the information they got from God with a satellite (a comparison I didn't make originally.)
It's called a metaphor; often learned in 1st grade. xD
Have you been paying any attention to our conversation? I have read up on it, and saying it is based on factual happenings is akin to hollywood movies that say "based on real events".
Have you been paying attention. I do not entertain you intolerant bigots. That you are unaware of historical floods that happened during the time of Noah, only shows your ignorance on this subject
That you are unaware of historical floods that happened during the time of Noah, only shows your ignorance on this subject
You pay such little attention that it is hard for me to not start insulting you. I have acknowledged time and time and time again that historical floods happened around the Euphrates and that they were the basis for the story of Noah's flood. But the topic at hand was if the myth of Noah's flood was historically accurate. Using said basis to claim that the Myth was accurate is akin to saying that Hollywood movies that are "Based on real events" are historically accurate.
