A god created earth for humans

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)