The Instigator
Mikeee
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

The garden of Eden exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,489 times Debate No: 18601
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

Mikeee

Pro

Pro will have to prove that the garden of Eden, described in Genesis, actual exist (on Earth), and holds some truths as described in the bible.

Con will have to disprove the existence of the garden of Eden, and show that the bible holds no truths about it, it is entirely false and made up.

Religious, Biblical, Archaeological, Historical, and Scientific evidence allowed.

The "actual proved" evidence will have to point back to the reference made in the biblical or religious accounts.

Biblical and Religious "evidence" will be assumed incorrect, until proven otherwise by either side.

First round is for clarifying questions and acceptance only.
larztheloser

Con

I thank my opponent for his willingness to debate this issue. I accept the debate and look forward to reading the evidence my opponent wishes to bring forward. For the definition of the garden of Eden, I will be looking to the New International version of the bible unless my opponent asks otherwise. Furthermore, to clarify, pro will only have to prove that the garden of eden existed (past tense - although if my opponent wants to try to prove that the garden of eden is still around then that's fine too). With that in mind I wish my opponent very good luck and look forward to a fun debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikeee

Pro

To get an idea of what we are trying to prove/disprove, we will need an understanding of what we are referring to. In the book of Genesis, a garden, the Garden of Eden, is described as a luscious closed off area, with an abundance of fruit and trees. We ARE NOT debating whether or not what the bible says about the tree that holds the power to eternal life, and whether or not God actual created Adam and Eve there, and all of the other religious traditions and stories/myths. We are only debating the existence of a garden, and we will leave it at that.

The bible says that Adam and Eve where kicked out of the garden and wonder around the Earth, and eventually started civilization. That will bring us up to date with historical records and civilizations existing in what many historians believe to be the correct time period. Civilization first began in the areas of and around the Fertile Crescent and Mesopotamia. Some of the earliest civilizations we know of are Babylon and Sumer, which are mentioned throughout the bible.
It seems that it would only make sense that early civilizations where started by early man. If you look at the dates, however, it is not possible that descendants of Adam and Eve and early civilization where in the same time frame. This leaves a huge gap in what we know of the time prior to, and at the start of early civilizations.

By determining what happened during that huge gap, it is possible that it could reveal what happened to this mystical garden. Because of the lack of written records, the only way to put together the missing pieces is through oral tradition stories and folklore. If there are tales of what happened during this missing time frame, and they are backed by scientific evidence, such as geographical futures of places, climate, and enough information to grasp a sense of what time this is all going on, it will become easier to be able to prove the existence of the garden, and possibly even point to a general region where it might be located.

I will make arguments for the missing timeframe and possible location in the next round, along with rebuttals to Cons argument.
larztheloser

Con

I thank my opponent for opening the debate.

First of all, I refute that we are only debating the existence of a garden in Eden. There exist modern cities called "Eden," which have houses and gardens just like other cities [1], but that does not make those gardens "THE" garden of Eden. We are debating whether the Garden of Eden, as mentioned in the Biblical book of Genesis (see my opponent's round one case), actually existed, not some other garden. If it so happens that Genesis states that there was a tree of knowledge and a tree of life in the garden of Eden, then my opponent needs to have evidence proving this.

Second, my opponent has put forward no evidence supporting his assertion that the garden of Eden actually existed. The best he could do is say that before the time of early civilisation, there is a gap of records concerning what we know, so tales are our best form of evidence. Firstly, great argument for the existence of Atlantis! Stories of mythical places abound in ancient folklore, and some are backed up by basic evidence - but it is the evidence that makes them true, not the story. Just because we have no other evidence does not make the little evidence that we do have good evidence. So why aren't stories good evidence? Firstly and most obviously, stories can be made up. It seems quite likely that stories such as the Eden narrative were invented to teach people moral lessons (such as - don't give in to temptation, don't trust snakes etc). There are other stories that clearly display this trope - for instance, the writings of Homer. Secondly, stories evolve over time. This is particularly true before the development of writing, where stories had to be memorised. As a result, stories were modified by retellers by making them more memorable. Thirdly, stories are changed to fit moral and religious norms. For an example, see all the different versions of the "Noah's Ark" story [2]. Fourthly, limited words create confusion. For instance, if I was to write today "I was born in Wellington," a scholar from the future might conclude that I lived in the United States, where there are more Wellingtons than in New Zealand [3]. In the same way, there is no way of knowing whether our modern interpretation of what the writers of Genesis meant is, in fact, the account that lines up with our modern-day evidence. That's why the biblical text itself is not good evidence for what went on during this time.

In summary: my opponent has, as yet, not made an argument.

What my opponent missed, however, is that aside from oral traditions, we have another way of assessing what people were up to back then. It's called archeology. Rather than hanging around in Gardens talking to animals, archaeologists tell us that before civilisation, people were hunter-gatherers who lived in caves and ate mammoths. They drew little pictures on cave walls, immortalising their hunting and gathering skills [4]. Some caves were even continuously occupied for over 100,000 years [5]. Sometimes they mined cool looking stones that they found in their caves [6]. They worked rocks into cool little sculptures [7]. If my opponent believes that the garden of Eden existed before human civilisation, he must reject that hunter-gatherer society existed before human civilisation. why? Because the narratives are mutually exclusive. In order to draw little people hunting mammoths, you need knowledge. But if humanity had not eaten of the tree of knowledge yet, it would not be able to produce these drawings. Therefore, my opponent must explain who was doing the mining, cave painting, hunting and sculpting, if not early humans, for his theory to stand. In any event, it's far from a "huge gap" if archaeologists are right.

I have further counter-proof, but I would prefer to reserve it until my opponent has put forward his case in defence of the motion. Good luck!

Sources
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...(mythology)
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...(disambiguation)
4 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
5 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
6 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
7 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Mikeee

Pro

Con talks about the story of Atlantis, which, prior it is discovery, was thought to be just a legend. If in the future there are not countries, but there is a story about a placed called the US, which was founded by aliens, because we know where it was, we have proof that is place existed, but we would be no way of determining whether the part about the aliens is true (obviously it's not because I just made it up). I will be trying to prove that the garden existed, but I will not mention anything about its mystical ability, or what not.

Because the bible describes where this place is, and the Earths main geographical features have stayed relatively the same, we can try to find to what area they are referring to.

The bible gives the description of where the Garden of Eden is;
"Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.[...] The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria and the fourth river is the Euphrates. "

We can recognize the rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates, because they play an important role in the development of civilization and agriculture. The river Gihon is a much smaller river, and no longer has its original name. The Gihon River is a river that flows many believe to run through Iran. The biblical texts states that it flows through to land of Kush, which some historians believe to be the land of the Kassites, who lived in Mesopotamia, in modern day western Iran. Eventually, like the bible says, it joins with the other three rivers.

The last of the three rivers, Pishon River, has never been found. Recent satellite images, however, have found evidence of a dried up river, a fossil river. This river is located between the Persian Gulf, and Red sea, through the Arabian Peninsula. The fossil river eventual comes to a point where all the three other rivers meet. This creates the point described in the bible where all four rivers become one and flow through of the Garden of Eden.

Now we have a geographic location, and all we have to do is follow the rivers, and eventual we will be at the Garden of Eden. The only problem is, these four rivers come together and flow into the Persian Gulf, which eventual connects to the Indian Ocean. There is no garden along the river banks, so where is it?

If you look at the Persian Gulf, it is lower than sea level, and filled with water. It is also surrounded by maintain ranges to the east. The geography of the floor of the Persian Gulf is flat. If you were to disconnect the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean, and take out all the water, you would be left with a vast plain. Assuming that the river that was formed by the other four rivers combing eventually flowed through the middle of what we will call the Persian Plain, into the ocean, it would be a fertile land along the river, which could facilitate agriculture. This Persian Plain has all the features that are common throughout all civilizations, fertile land provided by a river.

Is it possible that Mesopotamia and the Fertile Crescent are not the first created civilizations? Is it possible that the cradle of civilization is actually buried under the waters of the Persian Gulf? Many of the cities and towns described throughout the bible have never been found, it is possible that they were not referring to places such as Sumer and Babylon, but instead, early civilization, which was started in the Persian Plain.

If this is true, then it would explain many other long lost places described in the Bible. We were unable to find these places because we were looking on land, and not underwater. But there is still the question of why the Persian Plain is now filled with water and a gulf that connects to the Ocean.

Over hundreds of years, it is possible that the sea level rose, and flooded the plains. The bible mentions a flood sent to wipe out all of the sinful people who lived in this region. A man named Noah built an arch to survive to flood and eventually, after waiting, come to dry land. It is possible, assuming he existed, that he floated north up to modern-day Iraq.

Civilization developed is modern day Iraq, and along the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. By following the river, you will always be close to fertile land, so people spread out up and down the river and began new civilizations. From there, they migrated all over to populate the rest of the world.

Could there be undiscovered ancient civilizations, which date earlier to those of Mesopotamia, hidden by the water of the Persian Gulf? If a garden does in fact exist, then it would only make sense that this is the location of such a place.

Next round I will go into further detail and possibility, and rebuttal Con's arguments.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://focusmagazine.org...
http://www.kjvbible.org...
larztheloser

Con

I would like to begin by reiterating that Pro is not trying to prove that the garden of Eden existed, but rather that the garden of Eden as described in the book of Genesis existed. By my reading of the book of Genesis the garden is VERY mystical. Even if he does prove that there was a place called Eden which had gardens (which isn't hard, given that I live right next to a suburb called Eden with lots of gardens), that does not show the garden of Eden as described in Genesis existed.

Secondly, my opponent tries to show where the garden might have been. As I showed last round, just because the story matches up to a geographical location does not make the story any more or less reliable, or good evidence. Nevertheless, his geographic argument is flawed on a number of levels. First he asserts that "the Earths main geographical features have stayed relatively the same," and then continues by claiming that the Persian Gulf did not exist back then, along with several changes to major rivers. As it so happens, the Persian Gulf is pretty big - 251,000km squared [1]. I would call that a "main geographical feature." You can't make a claim that the Earth was more or less the same and then use that to prove that it wasn't more or less the same. I contend that the main geographical features do change, and the Persian Gulf was once a big swamp plain that did house agriculture. So was the Black Sea, and numerous other places - we call this the Holocene Glacial Retreat [2]. That does nothing to show that any of these places was the Garden of Eden, because many places were once fertile that are not fertile today. My opponent needs to show why this one is the "Garden" of the book of Genesis. He does so by looking at the rivers which he assumes have not changed (which is actually more or less scientifically correct, although in contradiction to his source which ignores science and uses the bible as evidence). A simple look on a map will further tell you that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers do not flow into one river, unless you count the Persian Gulf as a river (which it blatantly is too big for - you might as well call the Red Sea a river) - but even so, that would mean the Persian Gulf EXISTED at the time of the garden, when my opponent's whole theory relies on it not existing. The hypothesis about the other rivers is indeed a hypothesis, but should not be taken as anything more than speculation - without convincing evidence you should not accept these assertions. My opponent has done nothing to back up this barrage of geological assertions that are contradictory, nonsensical and don't do anything to support the "Garden of Eden" fable anyway.

Besides all this, the story my opponent presents is in fact not the story of the garden of Eden, it is the story of Noah's Ark. In the Garden narrative, God leads the only two humans out of a garden. In the Noah narrative, Noah leads his family out of the flood (which, by the way, covered the whole world, not just some gulf). You can't say the gulf was both for the Noah and Garden narrative because one flows on to the other - the Noah narrative has to be after the Eden narrative, not at the same time.

Next he claimed that people migrated from Iraq to all the rest of the world 5,500 years ago. That's firstly an assertion, and secondly a false one, because the Bering land bridge closed 18,000 years ago [4] and civilisation in Mesopotamia only began 7,000 years ago [3], yet people were blatantly living in America when Columbus popped over.

Last round my opponent promised to rebut my arguments. I gave him an argument to rebut. I explained how the pre-civilisation-Eden theory is incompatible with the hunter-gatherer-society theory espoused by archaeologists. His only reply (which didn't actually address my argument, but rather attempted to evade it) was that he's not here to debate the fantastical elements of the story. Great. In doing so he has conceded that the story according to Genesis is deeply flawed and contains no truths. Why? Because the whole story is fantastical. How do we know this? Well ... magical garden, magical trees, talking snakes, self-moving flaming swords, and the icing on the cake, there's a magical God who roams around. These are things which are clearly fantastical. If my opponent wishes to win this debate, he must show why the story of Eden given in genesis is true, and what he has admitted is that it's false except for the fact that there was once a piece of fertile land that isn't there any more. As I told you, firstly, that's not the legend, that's the legend of Noah, and secondly, there is no evidence linking this particular part of fertile land to the garden of Eden other than skewed and false geography, and third, even if all of that were not true, it still doesn't account for the garden as described in Genesis, which is clearly fantastical.

My opponent has examined lots of possibilities (but not relevant possibilities) and no arguments evidencing that the Genesis description is true. I look forward to his closing statements.

Sources
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
4 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
5 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Mikeee

Pro

Because I seem to be hard to understand and make any sense, I will draw out a timeline for how I am purposing the described events played out;

Timeline:

Adam and Eve get kicked out of the Garden of Eden --> Noah's flood --> Persian Plain floods and turns into the Persian Gulf --> Development of Civilization in the Fertile Crescent --> History of the world unfolds as normal
One thing led to another, not all at the same time, there is time in between these events and they did not all directly follow one another within a short amount of time (there where a multiple generations between Adam and Eve and Noah's flood)

I have said that I believe that the Garden of Eden is located buried somewhere under the Persian Gulf, so next time larztheloser and I go on a vacation to succubae dive in the Persian Gulf, I'll point it out to him. With all archeological discoveries, excavation will have to take place to uncover it, I have said the general area in which a dig should take place, but there is no way to pin-point the exact location just by looking at a map. If a archeological dig did take place, then I believe that they would find it in the place I described, but no excavations have happened, so we still don't know.
As for proving flaming swords and talking snakes; Con said stories are changed over time to make them more memorable, those are the parts I remember from Church. It's the same thing as saying that Jesus existed and was a real person (person-god) , did he exist, yes, is everything the bible says he did true, maybe, but the point is he was real.

"…the Earths main geographical features have stayed relatively the same"
In the terms of continents shifting, the Earth is three-fourths water, the Persian Gulf/Plain is a large area, but compared to the Oceans, not so much. Regardless of whether it's a major or minor change/feature, it doesn't have relevance or help any side prove/disprove anything.

"That does nothing to show that any of these places was the Garden of Eden, because many places were once fertile that are not fertile today"

It's not an issue of whether it was fertile land or not, it is whether it was above or below water, under the Persian Gulf isn't an ideal place to farm a farm.

"A simple look on a map will further tell you that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers do not flow into one river, unless you count the Persian Gulf as a river"

Look at a map (South East of Baghdad)[1], they form one river before they flow into the Persian Gulf.
"but even so, that would mean the Persian Gulf EXISTED at the time of the garden, when my opponent's whole theory relies on it not existing"

I am saying that the Persian Gulf existed, but it was not underwater, I call it the Persian Plain to distinguish when I am talking about it having water, or not having water. If you were to disconnect the Persian Gulf from the Indian Ocean and drain out all of the water, that is what I am referring to, overtime it became filled with water (possibly by Noah's flood described in the bible or Rise is ocean level).

"You can't say the gulf was both for the Noah and Garden narrative because one flows on to the other - the Noah narrative has to be after the Eden narrative, not at the same time."

It still existed after Adam and Eve left the garden, until it flooded, everything that was there was unaffected. This is not a debate about Noah's flood, but what I am saying is that maybe what historians thought to be Sumer and Babylon, where actually civilizations created in the Persian Plain (waterless Persian Gulf), and it says that God sent the flood to wipe out everyone because they were sinners, he flooded the Persian Gulf (now has water), and Noah went to Modern day Iraq, outside of the flooded area.

"Next he claimed that people migrated from Iraq to all the rest of the world 5,500 years ago. That's firstly an assertion, and secondly a false one, because the Bering land bridge closed 18,000 years ago [4] and civilisation in Mesopotamia only began 7,000 years ago [3], yet people were blatantly living in America when Columbus popped over."
After Noah's flood, history as we know it played out as normal (I changed history up until this point).
"I explained how the pre-civilisation-Eden theory is incompatible with the hunter-gatherer-society theory espoused by archaeologists"

I have not dismissed other creation myths being true. I have also said that all of the hunter and gathers who left the Persian Plain (no water) where not destroyed, only the people who stayed and where there when the flood came died (the people living in the area which the flood hit died).

"If my opponent wishes to win this debate, he must show why the story of Eden given in genesis is true, and what he has admitted is that it's false except for the fact that there was once a piece of fertile land that isn't there any more"
Was there a closed off, isolated area, that had abundant wild life and fruit trees, yes (I am trying to prove), did the fruits of the tree have magical abilities, probably not. By looking at the landscape of the land you would be able to tell if there one was life in that spot (the garden), or is there was just a normal plain with not farms, gardens, or wild life. In ancient civilizations that have been retaken by wild overgrowth, there is a way to determine weather a certain place once was cleared for farmland, left uncultivated, or had a certain type of species of plant or animal living there (fossils). If the Garden of Eden exist, then you could be able to tell by the amount of fossils found there, opposed to other areas where it was normal forest, or an open plain.

Conclusion;

If archeologist where to excavate the area I described, eventually they would find enough evidence (fossils) to prove that a garden (The Garden of Eden) existed in that spot (carbon dating evidence can place the time period, and if it matches the correct time, then it is the right time, otherwise it's the wrong bible).
To disprove my theory, Con must prove that there is NOTHING significant on the bottom of the Persian Gulf.

Sources:

1. http://ancienthistory.about.com...
larztheloser

Con

What did my opponent have to prove in this debate? Well, let's ask him. In round one he states:

"Pro will have to prove that the garden of Eden, described in Genesis, actual exist (on Earth), and holds some truths as described in the bible."

So there were two elements pro had to prove:
1. The Garden of Eden, as described in Genesis, actually existed
2. That what the Bible said about the garden was somewhat true

Pro needed to prove BOTH in order to win the debate.

What my opponent has said is that in theory, people might have farmed the land under the Persian Gulf before the dawn of civilisation. I agree this is a possibility. What he then needed to prove was that this land was the land described in Genesis. To "prove" that he cited the actual location of two rivers, and hypothesized two more. I had no fewer than ten responses to this, the one piece of analysis he has given. First I stated that it is evidence that makes the story true, not the story itself. My opponent could not tell you what evidence he had to support his claim that there were, in fact, two people living under the Persian Gulf. Secondly, I explained how stories can be made up to teach others moral lessons. My opponent could not tell you why the story of Genesis could not have been just made up. Thirdly, I told you that stories change over time, so who knows if it really originally said "four" rivers or "five" rivers. My opponent could not demonstrate the veracity of the text. Fourth, I told you that modern interpretations of a limited number of words may have radically different meanings. My opponent could not show you that his interpretation was consistent with the original interpretation. Fifth, I told you that there are several places that are candidates under that logic, particularly if rivers can be hypothesized (three major rivers currently flow into the Black Sea, after all). My opponent never explained why this particular location is the garden and the others aren't. Sixth, I told you that the Tigris and Euphrates do not flow into one river. My opponent tried to point you to a map showing that they do, but do not be deceived - the Tigris and Euphrates rivers flow into a river delta that leads to the Gulf. Only the widest points of the two rivers are depicted on the map my opponent has displayed, which is as inaccurate as saying that the Nile doesn't have a delta. In short - they meet, but only after they have already split into a delta. Seventh, my opponent did not provide evidence for the rivers he hypothesised. Eighth, that he is confusing his narrative with Noah's. He tried to respond by saying that it wasn't the flood that kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden. If so, then he needs to show what did (since he denies the fantastical elements of the story ie God) and why Noah was in the garden (ie Persian Gulf) when it was flooded (since the bible states he wasn't). Ninth, if he puts all these events long before hunter gatherers and global migration, then he isn't talking about "shortly before civilisation" any more. Since he linked civilisation's growth to the location of the garden of Eden in round two, he has admitted that the premise on which he put his location is false. Rather, he is talking about when human fossils first came about, about 250,000 years ago. At that point, the sea level was about the same as today [1] contradicting his whole theory. Tenth, I said that the story is clearly fantastical in nature, so the location might as well be fantastical too. It would be the most consistent application. To all of this analysis, my opponent had no good response.

So did pro meet his burden of proof?
1. "The Garden of Eden, as described in Genesis, actually existed" <- he showed that it is possible for a garden to have existed in a place called Eden, but not that the Garden as described in Genesis, with its supernatural trees and walking serpents. At best he showed that the location may correlate with the description given in Genesis, but even that I doubt.
2. "That what the Bible said about the garden was somewhat true" <- this presupposes that the garden existed. Did he show that anything the Bible said about the garden is even somewhat true? No. I showed that the narrative in the Bible is wholly fantastical, and my opponent even admitted that the fantastical elements are not true. By his own admission, therefore, he lost that one.

What did I need to prove? In round one my opponent states:
"Con will have to disprove the existence of the garden of Eden, and show that the bible holds no truths about it, it is entirely false and made up."

Or put another way:
1. Disprove ("is entirely false" is pretty much the same thing)
2. Show it holds no truths in the Bible
3. Made up

What I have done is pointed out numerous inconsistencies and gaps in pro's theory. Since pro's case has been largely geographical I have stuck to geographical arguments, and it wouldn't be fair to bring up new stuff this late. It is entirely false, even on my opponent's own terms, that the Persian Gulf is a candidate for the Garden of Eden. First, you would have to ignore all the fantastical elements. Second, you would have to hypothesize river flows, which don't even match to the time period you're talking about. Third, you'd assume that the story hasn't changed over time. And so on and so forth. There is a chance of precisely 0% that all of these come together in such a way that agrees with both the narrative and known geographical history. Therefore I have shown that:

1. Nothing about the narrative is true
2. The theory about the location of the garden is probably not true, even supposing that the narrative was true

Recall that my opponent has not met his burden of proof. Do I meet my burden of proof? Let's investigate:

1. Disprove <- Yes, I disproved my opponent's conception of the Garden of Eden, as well as the possibility that what my opponent conceives as the Garden could, in fact, be the garden. I also gave hard evidence the story has warped and changed over time, so the most likely scenario is that there never was a Garden of Eden.
2. Show it holds no truths in the Bible <- Pro admitted this (see my second point on his burden of proof).
3. Made up <- Yes. If it is not true, then it is made up.

I think the choice is clear.

Vote Con.

Sources
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
kohai, I never debate according to "semantics", you should no that I don't particularly care for "careful wording", I meant what I meant, not something extremely different because I used certain words...
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Pro tried a semantical approach, thus losing him conduct points. He clearly states in his opening round that it is that described in Genesis, ni room for semantics.

Arguments because pro proved nothing and had the BoP whilst con refuted much of what pro states. Con wins.
Posted by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
Has anything I have said made any sense, or does it sound like I am just talking nonsense?
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
... and that's just the beginning *evil laugh*
Posted by WriterSelbe 5 years ago
WriterSelbe
This is like asking someone to prove that dinosaurs weren't real. You can show them a bone and you've already won. This is just an easy win. No fair.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
What people are concerned about is that you can say, "pointing to the bible as evidence, the bible says the garden existed, therefore, I have evidence to support my claim." Since "biblical evidence" is allowed. What you really want is the biblical definition of Eden, but non-biblical evidence.
Posted by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
By biblical I mean, not the whole of the evidence is biblical text, but the historic and scientific evidence points back to what the bible says. Giving evidence that has nothing to do with the biblical account won't prove anything. The evidence will have to go towards proving the biblical account, so to prove something assumed wrong, you can't use what you are trying to prove right. Ill fix it so its more clear.
Posted by Oldfrith 5 years ago
Oldfrith
If you say you can use Biblical evidence, then you've just won the debate. Redo your opening statement to say, "Archeological and historical."
Posted by Mikeee 5 years ago
Mikeee
They way I meant it to be understood was that the garden in the bible, was what the bible said it was, I can't just pick a random garden and throw out some religious facts and say I win. Con would have to show that that same garden didn't exist, at all.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
I also love the religious and biblical evidence is allowed. That makes Pro's need to prove "some" pretty dang easy, while Con has to solidily prove a negative.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by american5 5 years ago
american5
MikeeelarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: con was using a a lot of wikipedia for reasources
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
MikeeelarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Mikee quickly went against his own debate parameters...He stated in round one that both sides was to debate on the existence of Eden in the bible, but covered only a broad, hypothetical concept of Eden (losing him conduct). Mikee's sources were invalid, one of which even lists that the Nile has no delta and his arguments seem to introduce and more extraordinary claims, many--if not all--were irrelevant or refuted by Con...
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
MikeeelarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes a lot of wild claims with no evidence or basis in fact such as saying that the garden of Eden is near the Persian Gulf. Con explains all of the reasons why Pro's claim is erroneous and even gives his own case regarding the mutual exclusiveness of the garden of Eden in Genesis and what Archaeological evidence on early hunters and gatherers suggests.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
MikeeelarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments