It takes more faith to be an Atheist than a Christian

DISCLAIMERTo win this debate, Pro was expected to prove that atheists have more faith than Christians, but instead he tried to shift the goal-posts, while quote-mining and misrepresenting sources.ResolutionI accepted the debate based on the resolution: "It takes more faith to be an Atheist than a Christian." Pro's title is supposed to represent the resolution, unless Pro specifies that the title doesn't represent the resolution and presents the actual resolution he wants to debate. There was no clear clarification that he was providing "atheistic evolution verses Jesus' resurrection" as a resolution, since he didn't claim that the title is not the resolution, or use the terms "full resolution" or "resolution" in Round 1, but instead he provided it like another argument, much like his argument that "atheists only believe things they see." Therefore, it is reasonable for me to assume that the resolution of the debate is "It takes more faith to be an Atheist than a Christian." Moreover, If Pro insists on debating another resolution, he should concede this debate and start another one where his resolution is clearly defined.Misrepresenting citationsPro quoted-mined and argued about his Talk Origins citation: "So we can see here that nowhere does it say that there was a specific observed increase of information, other than in simulations."The part Pro left out :"Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of Increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991) Increased genetic materiall (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003) Novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996) Novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)"Pro has obviously lied when he claimed that his citation says nothing about an increase in information by simply ignoring 80% of the text and scrolling down to a paragraph that speaks of a different aspect (how simulations also confirm that). Here is the link (http://www.talkorigins.org...). -- Pro quote-minded from the source on Genealogies, Rebuttal 1: I simply searched and found an author, whom I don't agree with, but who addresses Biblical scholars who reject the genealogies of Jesus, and therefore I included his citation for the fact that he mentions their existence, and not because I adopt his ideas and arguments. Examples of such scholars would be the biblical scholar Robert H. Gundry considers the series of unknown names in Matthew connecting Joseph's grandfather to Zerubbabel as an outright fabrication, produced by collecting and modifying various names from 1 Chronicles[1], and the biblical scholar Barbara Sivertsen considers Luke’s genealogy to be invented out of oral traditions[2]. Some biblical scholars reject not one but both genealogies as opposed to the scholars above. For instance, the biblical scholar Bart Ehrman claims, " For centuries scholars have recognized that the birth narratives of the New Testament are historically problematic... To start with, they both give genealogies of Jesus’ father, Joseph (it’s an interesting question why they do so, since in neither account is Jesus a blood relative of Joseph), but they are different genealogies... It is not that one is a genealogy of Mary and the other of Joseph. Both Gospel authors are crystal clear: they are giving Joseph’s genealogy[3]. "Therefore, Ehrman admits that the genealogies are contradictory and historically problematic. He has also critqued both on his website[4,5]. Furthermore, asking what "motive" could Matthew an Luke have to fabricate a genealogy is treating them from the start as disciples and leaving out the possibility that they could be frauds who are simply spreading legends .MY CASE FOR EVOLUTION* I couldn't present three other sections because of the character-space, so I'm just presenting two. Chromosome twoIn laymen terms, our ape cousins and ancestors have 24 pairs of chromosome while humans have 23. The missing pair of chromosome in humans is because two apes chromosomes fused together into one[6], which shows strong evidence for evolution as it shows how our pairs of chromosomes changed along the evolutionary path. In other words, we wouldn't have fused ape chromosomes if we didn't evolve from apes. Fossil recordLucy's set is relatively incomplete, but every bone fragment in Lucy falls perfectly in the time frame of evolutionary change, and so the whole set of fossils shows exactly how species evolved, given that we're speaking of thousands of records, and not just Lucy's. Moreover, the Australopithecus Sediba (shown below) also shows that we're not just dealing with "dubious bone fragments" but some sets which are almost complete in describing one symmetrical side of the bone structure. It's odd that Pro would undermine years of scientific research published on academic websites and just reject the fossil record as "dubious bone fragments" when we have species like the American horse which have almost complete transional fossils[7]. Australopithecus Sediba. The white region is plastic modeling, but as we can see his right-side is mostly covered, knowing that bone-structure is symmetric and most of the skull, shoulders, waist and right arm are preserved.DROPPED ARGUMENTSPro dropped many of his original arguments in Round 1:1- Atheists only believe in things they see.2- Atheists have more faith than Christians. [The resolution of the debate itself].3- Evolution happened years ago, so it can never be confirmed to have happened.4- The genealogy of Jesus is right at every point. [Baseless assertion and controversial point in Biblical Scholarship]SUMMARYPro used his previous round to avoid his burden of proof and use blatant fabrications to attack my academic citations. I defended my academic citations by showing that Talk Origins said exactly what I was saying, and I showed that Pro was simply misunderstanding my citation on the biblical scholars. Pro, so far, has used a red herring (Darwinian evolution) in an attempt to establish that atheism requires more faith than Christianity. I await an actual argument based on the original resolution or a concession of this debate.CITATIONS[1] Robert H. Gundry (1982), Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art, Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans. Retrieved from Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org...).[2] Barbara Sivertsen (2005), "New testament genealogies and the families of Mary and Joseph". Retrieved from Wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org...).[3] What do we really know about Jesus - Bart Ehrman . Retrieved from (http://www.agnostic-library.com...)[4] ehrmanblog.org/matthews-genealogy/[5] ehrmanblog.org/lukes-genealogy-2/[6] Specifically quoting, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." Retrieved from the US National Library of Medicine(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...).[7] chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm