Mrs. Rhymer, whose opinion of my intelligence springs more from love than realism, has volunteered me to enter a debate. Two, actually, but both on the same topic: the plausibility of the Noah’s Ark myth. (I think my choice of words make my position clear.) Originally, the topic was going to be creationsim versus evolutionism,* but through Jedi mind tricks I have managed to convince my honorable opponent to move to the Deluge (though I fully expect to evolution to be brought up). I’m wondering if anybody hereabouts as ever participated in such a debate and if so, if anyone has any suggestions beyond linking to talkorigins.org.
There will be, as I said, two debates: one in front of our book group, will be pretty much according to the formal rules fo debate; the other, at my opponent’s church(he’s the youth pastor) wil be more free-form and include questions from the audience, which will be mostly junior high school students. (I fully expect to get massacred at the latter one.) I’m already preparing info on the vapor canopy [del] theory hypothesis [/del] allegation and other matters related to the physical impossibility of the event; but I’d appreciate suggestions on, say, the internal inconsistencies of the narrative. The debates will be in the middle of April.
Suggestions?
*I hate that word. Acceptance of the theory of evolution as the best extant explanation for human origins is not an ism and not a religion, nor is it a matter fo belief. New word needed!
Search Youtube or other sources for Kent Hovind’s Creation Seminars. That should give you a pretty good heads-up on the kind of shit you will be asked. If your brain hasn’t exploded then take a look at Answers in Genesis, and (slightly more plausible) ICR (Institute for Creation Research) for other arguments that will be lobbed at you.
I’ve spent a ton of time in talk.origns (or I used to), so I’m famililar with the, um, oeuvre of Hovind, AIG, and ICR. (In what universse is ICR even remotely plausible, by the way?) YouTube hadn’t occurred to me, though.
There are only two things I’d add to the talk.origins FAQ.
How to explain the DNA evidence showing the first common male and female ancestors of man were long before the flood (and at different times from each other, so no Adam and Eve.)
Probably most crucial, you need to make it very clear that miracles are out. Once he tries to explain something as a miracle, then he can explain everything as one. The only answer to that is, fine, but since you concede that it is religion, not science, you’ll agree that it shouldn’t be taught in schools.
ETA: Though this isn’t a plausibility issue, there is a big moral one. The Bible said that those drowned were evil. Maybe so, but babies were drowned also. If he starts justifying that, and I’ve seen people claiming they were guaranteed to grow up evil, you might just say, and “I bet you say you’re pro-life.” Cheap debating trick, but it should get a laugh.
Point out that lots of organisms are highly dependent on their ecosystems, and can’t just be picked up and put in a box for a year, unless you take a very considerable chunk of their environment with them. Fig wasps, for example, have a short life cycle (too short to make them wait while on board), but cannot complete it without the developing/ripening fruits of their particular species of fig.
Also, expect any argument you put forward to be dismissed by a single counterexample, so you might ask how all the different kinds of fish - each with their own, often very stringent requirements for salinity, temperature, oxygenation, depth, etc, survived all the water on the planet being violently mixed up together - and on asking this, it may be pointed out that catfish are able to tolerate a wide range of adverse conditions, so it’s not a problem.
-Except that you asked about them all and got a generalisation based on one particularly tolerant example. Be prepared to point out just how incomplete and misleading an answer that is.
This is snarky as hell, and I know it, so Mods please don’t jump down my throat.
Umberto Eco wrote a book called “The Island of the Day Before.” It actually accounts for The Deluge AND will confuse your opponents really badly. Bonus humor points if they claim to have read it (they won’t have). And it’s a GREAT book.
I mention this because turnabout is fair play. The magical types really just want to trip you up; this means “victory” to them. They’re clever at it, too. Bust loose with Eco if they corner you.