The Instigator
roark555
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DudeWithAName
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points

Is biblical creationism valid?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
DudeWithAName
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 485 times Debate No: 79092
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

roark555

Con

Round 1 is for acceptance only, 2 is for opening statements, 3-4 is rebuttals and additional arguments, and 5 is for closing remarks. Best of luck to pro.
DudeWithAName

Pro

I accept. I would like to state that I am arguing for the existence of the biblical description of an intelligent designer, as for its my explanation of how everything came to be. I am not a you would call a super religious person, just a simple Christian arguing for the existence of a God. I do not take everything in the bible literally, for instance, I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old. Thanks for the debate Con and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
roark555

Con

roark555 forfeited this round.
DudeWithAName

Pro

Thanks for the debate Con, I guess I will just provide my points even though yours have not been stated.

I would like to first ask to set aside bias for this or any debate, even though in the end a bit of bias is inevitable. I think its important to really look at your opponents arguments before just dismissing them like trash. In the constant debate of is there a God or did Jesus really rise from the dead, people constantly state that there is no evidence for God, or Christians idiotically cursing atheist without looking at any of there points. My point is that I would like to stay away from stances in debating to were no amount of evidence would convince either Con or Pro. Watch this short video for a better explanation at what I'm saying. https://www.youtube.com...

Now I will start off with the moral argument, as for I believe it provides many important points to look at when talking about God in the biblical definition. If God does not exist then there are NO objective moral values. If there are no objective moral values, then killing and raping for self gain is in fact... not wrong, but no one wants to accept this, why? If you are an atheist and on the news it says, "109 innocent people on an island were murdered and more will soon be murdered," why should you even spare a second of your time caring about them? If atheism was true all along then why to people CARE? Atheist try to attack this argument in so many different ways, but I could also just say why should you spend your time arguing against it? If its true that without a God to give us a moral standard, then none exist, then why should it be any harder to accept than when the earth was shown to be round? If its true then why is there any point at all to create arguments against it? If any atheist is reading this argument right now and they want to disprove it, I ask you why is it worth disproving if ATHEISM is your view? Why is anything worth disproving if the only meaning in life is survival? If I ask you if killing, raping, and child abuse are MORALLY wrong, and you feel the need to say yes, then aren't you giving evidence towards there being a Creator in that moment? https://www.youtube.com...

I hope Con and other people realize I'm just siding with what to me makes sense. I don't want to ever come across as another one of those dumb Christians that doesn't know what He's talking about. That's why at the beginning I sated that I don't believe that the earth is 6000 years old because that doesn't make sense, and that whole claim is coming from other Christians that well, also don't make sense. I'm not trying to come from the so called God of the gaps argument, I'm going with I believe is good evidence for biblical creationism.

My Next argument is what I call the Survival argument. Assuming that Con believes in evolution, I ask Con if life is only about survival for an atheistic point of view. If you say no, then the evidence is on you to prove to me that its possible to have your position and life not be just about survival, as for evolution is about surviving I believe, sorry if I'm mistaken. If you say yes, then I would like to ask you a question. If life is only about survival, then why did life evolve the why it did? Life has evolved in a way in witch things like beauty and love and anger are all possible things within our species. Also things in other species, like the orca whale or the giraffe, big and interesting animals, but then you have to think, if the world is only about survival, then this is not an evolved world. My perfect view of an evolved world, is where land animals are nothing more than flesh pods in the ground in which they only eat the nutrients in the ground. I'm not sure if that is possible but you get the point. Life should be much much more simple, and what I would call lame. If its just SURVIVAL, and nothing more, then survival really is lame and life sucks. All you would need is some evolved animal to reproduce fast
and it be able to live off of dirt and other things without any predators. Yet you have a huge and crazy world that we somehow have the ability to think about and comprehend, when it makes more sense for a simple and lame world in which we cant really think about anything or comprehend anything because all we need to do is survive. But NOPE, we don't got that world, and I DON'T KNOW WHY if all I need to do is survive. Its just a bunch of contradictions that seem to be skipped over because science in the end will explain it all, right?

My third argument is the teleological argument, or the argument from design. This argument asks us about the universe's complexity. How did the universe come to be this way? Many people dismiss this argument all the time, but they haven't exactly disproved it, they just to me seem to avoid it. The whole universe, the stars the planets the cosmos, how and why is it this why? Many people use this example, if you see a watch on the side of the road next to trees and plants, do you say it was designed or it was just randomly was put there by the universe? Many people will say that plants evolved thats why we think life is so complex so imply that there is a creator, but I'm not just talking about plants and animals. What about the planets? The spheres with gravity and different rocks and mountains? Do you just say "Well somehow it happened, there is no need for a creator, your just a dumb creationist," or do you sit down and put on your big boy boots and say, "Wow there really is something here." Trying to disprove this with the multiverse argument just put a bigger load of evidence on than was needed before. I'm not saying I don't thing the big bang didn't happen or anything like that, I'm saying why did it create what it did? I'm not saying life is perfect, so the extinction argument wouldn't apply here.

This is some of the reasons why I believe biblical creationism is a sane view that is supported by evidence.

I'm interested to see what you have to say Con, and once again, thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
roark555

Con

roark555 forfeited this round.
DudeWithAName

Pro

Con has forfeited too many times, vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
roark555

Con

roark555 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
roark555

Con

roark555 forfeited this round.
DudeWithAName

Pro

Well... Idk, Vote Pro, Don't forfeit guys...
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by DudeWithAName 1 year ago
DudeWithAName
A forfeit? Hmm, oh well I'm sure there is a good reason.
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
An old earth creationist. This will be interesting.
Posted by stubs 1 year ago
stubs
Can you define terms?
Posted by Berend 1 year ago
Berend
Well the Bible says it happened, and the Bible says the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is True.

/s

You should get Kent Hovind. I hear he is released from Prison.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
See, I understand that your resolution is a "should," thus because I would be Pro if I accepted the debate, I would be arguing for the validity of creationism. Someone might screw it up and think otherwise.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AdithyaShark 1 year ago
AdithyaShark
roark555DudeWithANameTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: First, let me cover conduct. The conduct point is pretty straightforward. Pro gains conduct by default, as Con forfeits the majority of the round, which is rarely considered acceptable conduct in any debate setting. A forfeit means the other side is deprived of the chance to debate, and there's no message that the debater is forfeiting, so it's rudely leaving the game. As such, I am obliged to award the conduct point to Pro. The spelling/grammar point is tied, as neither side had any major grammatical errors that severely hurt readability. I tie the arguments point, primarily because, despite the fact that Con did not present any arguments, I did not find Pro's arguments to be convincing, which is demanded by this point. Thus, neither side was able to present strong arguments, which is why I tie the points. The sources points are also tied. This is because Con was unable to use any strong reference, and Pro had multiple bare assertions. As always, I'm happy to clarify my RFD.