The Instigator
Ivyks
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

A god created earth for humans

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,855 times Debate No: 13584
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (3)

 

Ivyks

Con

I am simply asking for someone to provide an argument for the religious belief of creationism and against the theory of evolution.

I have heard the phrase "evolution is a myth" but have yet to hear any arguments at all to support this.

Please try to provide relevant examples. More emphasis shall not be placed on either biblical or technical scientific information. Ideally points might be based on logic, experience, observation, documentation, solid facts/evidence, etc.

Sources should be cited for factual information or evidence only and any points of view or opinions expressed by authors of documentation provided, should not be taken into account.

Theories, opinions and other more subjective points made by others should be quoted and labeled as such not to as facts but to express possible interpretations or conclusions of facts given.
vardas0antras

Pro

I am arguing that God created this earth for humans. My opponents argument against this notion and his logic is that there is no God hence God couldn't have created an earth for humans - because he doesn't exist!However how could one prove that God doesn't exist?Evolution!He states that "I have heard the phrase "evolution is a myth" but have yet to hear any arguments at all to support this.". Whatever this is true or not doesn't matter, what does matter is that he doesn't realize that I don't have to "provide an argument for the religious belief of creationism and against the theory of evolution.".Why?

I don't have to do this because evolution is fully compatible with theism. For starters there are people who believe that God created this world for humans using evolution. They are called :Theistic Evolutionists". Now even if I had to defend a group which completely disagrees with evolution for example "Young Earth Creationist".I still don't have this burden because:
"The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events. Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions." This and many more reasons can be found in this website:
http://www.answersingenesis.org...

However for this debate Ill take the Theistic Evolutionists side so that we wouldn't waste time on unnecessary things.

5 rounds are plenty so Ill ask my opponent what we should do (please respond in my channels comment section):
1.We will debate whatever or not God exists.
2.We will debate whatever or not Creationism can exist.
3.We will debate whatever or not God created this world for us or for animals (perhaps plants).
4.We will debate whatever or not the Bible is scientific.
5.You choose

I strongly recommend Nr.1 because it seems the most appropriate (since your argument of evolution doesn't work I suppose all we have left is God and his existence).
Debate Round No. 1
Ivyks

Con

Ivyks forfeited this round.
vardas0antras

Pro

Sadly my opponent has forfeited the debate.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 2
Ivyks

Con

Sorry about that. I did not mean to forfeit, I just had a busy week as I work full time and I had finals as well. ( I suppose I was expecting it could have worked out if my opponent had posted their argument sooner. My mistake.)

I might touch on a bit of all of the above categories outlined by my opponent. We'll see.

Human beings are no different than any other animal, insect, plant or bacteria in how we have life and how we have evolved.

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly WHY common descent chose the paths that it did. If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists. (new earth, old earth etc.)

Archaeology supports at most the general background of the Bible and some relatively recent details. It does not support every biblical claim. In particular, archaeology does not support anything about creation, the Flood, or the conquest of the Holy Land. If a few instances of historical accuracy are so significant, then an equal claim for accuracy can be made for the "Iliad" and "Gone with the Wind." Their is a whole genre dedicated to historical fiction.

When somebody designs something, he or she usually has a purpose for it, but the purpose is that of the designer, not the object designed. For example, people have a purpose for windows and airbags in automobiles, but the automobile itself has no such purpose. When the purpose argument is applied to life, though, the designer is intentionally left entirely unknowable, and thus the purpose of the designer is not part of the picture. We know only the object's purpose for part of the object, which is not relevant unless you want to claim that the object designed itself. Life also exists at cross-purposes. A bobcat's purpose for a rabbit is likely to be quite different from the rabbit's purpose. A chicken's purpose for itself is not the same as our purpose for a chicken.

Most forms of creationism hold that all "kinds" were created separately, as described in Genesis. Unfortunately there is no biological definition of "kind"; it appears to be a vague term referring to our psychological perception of types of organisms such as "dog", "tree", or "ant". In previous centuries, creationists equated "kind" to species. With the discovery of more and more evidence for derivation of one species from another, creationists bumped "kind" further up to mean higher taxonomic levels, such as "genus", or "family", though this lumps a large variety of animals in the same "kind". Some creationists say that "kind" cannot be defined in biological terms.

There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

If another theory replaces evolution, the new theory must somehow explain why the current theory passed all the tests. So any new theory that replaces evolution would have to explain why it works so well. Creationism, then, is not a possible replacement.

The problem with Christianity is that it requires faith. Faith requires one to dismiss logic and reason. It promotes closed-mindedness in this way whereas science is always open to applying new studies and evidence to the overall conclusions.

Some creationists argue that the complexity of the earth, life and all living things must mean that there had to be an intelligent creator, designer. If complexity cannot arise without intelligence, then we immediately must ask, "Who created the intelligent creator?" The creator could not spring into existence if complexity requires intelligence. However, faith as the answer, again, requires one to dismiss or ignore any of this logical reasoning. It's quite convenient I'm sure.

"The real issue as far as man is concerned, is that when you accept such an important issue as the creation of the universe on faith you are destroying your confidence and the validity of your own mind. It has to be either reason or faith." - Ayn Rand

In addition, even if a god does exist, it would make more sense for him to get rid of us entirely instead of keeping us around after life. The idea that after we die, there will be some all-knowing, all-loving father figure to greet us, explain the universe to us in a way we understand and can accept, who comforts us, makes us forget our worries, fears and negative thoughts and escorts us to paradise is indeed the ultimate fantasy. Religious people believe so strongly because they want so strongly to believe.

"I will not die, it's the world that will end" - Unknown

I asked in my original post for some examples of creationism (specifically, especially intelligent design) as supporting evidence for the argument. In addition, You are never called upon to prove a negative. That's a law of logic.

I've posted my view and quotes from others that support why I have this view but it is, I believe, up to my opponent to support his or her argument now. (correct me if you think I'm wrong though)
vardas0antras

Pro

- I did not mean to forfeit, I just had a busy week
That is understandable plus you still have enough rounds to win.

- Evolution and Genesis
Evolution can't disprove the Creation because Genesis can be interpreted in ridiculous amount of ways (Personally I follow about 3 interpretations) and the evidence of evolution contain Atheistic and Naturalistic presumptions. Furthermore I treat creationism as an idea meaning it can adapt to virtually every theory. You also mentioned that evolution doesn't explain the question of why, I agree though I still have to hear the opposing views.

- Archeology
The Bible is indeed archeologically and historically accurate. As for "creation, the Flood, or the conquest of the Holy Land" Ill remain neutral until you show evidence of the contrary. "few instances of historical accuracy are so significant"
If in tune with this assumption, then we still have huge amounts of evidence considering the amount of books the Bible contains.Simply said I can use the gospel of Luke to make the genesis book more probable but you can simply refute the book of Matthew and the entire Bible falls.
"An equal claim for accuracy can be made for the "Iliad" and "Gone with the Wind."
I didn't read "Gone with the Wind" but you do realize that Iliad is simply a long poem while Bible books such as Kings 1 and 2 are supposed to contain full historic accuracy. These books are never intended to be fictional. However I have a feeling that I misunderstood you.

- Design
"If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things?"
One creator.
"That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?"
This involves the mind of God hence this topic will be fruitless but I suggest that everything and I repeat that everything is incredibly complex (Universe, DNA, Nature, Our bodies, etcetera) from this we can conclude that Gods idea of "special creation" differs from yours. However this is only a suggestion.

- Evolution
"If another theory replaces evolution, the new theory must somehow explain why the current theory passed all the tests." Presumptions and assertions with the mixture of truth. However I don't have to debate evolution. As far as I'm concerned our God created this world via evolution. Maybe not, but that doesn't change the fact that this doesn't concern me.

- Something fun
"Creationism, then, is not a possible replacement." Please explain me how creationism is a theory in the same way evolution is.

- Faith
"Faith requires one to dismiss logic and reason" I am sure that by your definition it does but by mine it does not.
"It promotes closed-mindedness" Then it would be narrow minded for me to believe that my doctor knows what he is doing? No but what you are referring to is blind faith also called naiveness and stupidity, I assure you that I'm neither.

- God
God cannot be created and I am certain the you've heard this many times. One may ask how is that possible but since we believe that God has created time, I suppose it would be also easy to believe that God has created the idea of birth, creation, design, the concept of human reproduction and the ability to invent. Ergo this becomes a question which isn't meant to challenge the idea of God but to praise him just like the question of who is like God?

- Paradise
"even if a god does exist, it would make more sense for him to get rid of us entirely instead of keeping us around after life" I doubt that there is anything more to this comment than emotions.
"Religious people believe so strongly because they want so strongly to believe." I have no desire to give up on sin and I live a comfortable life hence you're wrong.

- Examples of creationism
What do you mean by that ? I can debate you that generally speaking this world seems to have a design (complexity and such things would be mentioned). However first I ask for clarification.
Debate Round No. 3
Ivyks

Con

Ivyks forfeited this round.
vardas0antras

Pro

My opponent has forfeited this round

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 4
Ivyks

Con

Ivyks forfeited this round.
vardas0antras

Pro

My opponent has forfeited his last round please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
No contest obviously.
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
3 forfeits? Come on.
All points to PRO.
Conduct : PRO, for no dropped rounds.
S&G : I can't justify this outside the realm of, "You dropped 3 rounds of the debate, you used significantly less S&G"
Arguments ; PRO, CON didn't refute PRO's arguments from R3.
Sources : PRO, Con had no sources.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Both Buddhism and Taoism are Atheistic. They don't allow for Deism. (I can show you quotes from scripture if you want.)
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
Interesting, I am very fond of Daoism and Buddhism already (especially Daoism). I've incorporated some of their beliefs into my own (I've started meditating too). I've always seen Laozi as the first anarchist. Deism can follow that belief, though it depends on the individual, I personally don't believe god created earth for humans.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
@LiquidLiquid

Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism, Confucianism.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
Are there any religions that claim that don't claim that God created earth for humans?
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
I like hummus too! We should be friends!
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
I like hummus.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Before I begin reading may I ask whats your main argument (I intended to read and respond today but school can be very exhausting).
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Ivyksvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
Ivyksvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
Ivyksvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70