Evolution based on Abiogenesis is more Rational than Creationism

Con: "I feel sry for my opponent. Accepting something just because everyone else does is idiotic and sheep-like."Con has clearly violated the Code of Conduct for Debate.org [10. http://www.debate.org...] that clearly state:-No use of profanities or swear words.-No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.I have a strong back and thick skin, so his insults are truly meaningless to me they only represent that Con is grasping at straws here, and has no good arguments, only ad hominem attacks.Con: "I am sorry that I was unclear when explaining evolution and creationism. I was explaining aspects of them. No religion that believes in creationism believes the universe has just been. All religions of that nature have some explanation."Evolutionists do not actually believe anything that you claimed they did, therefore you did not mention any aspect of evolution correctly. Many different religions have completely different explanations, but they cannot all be possibly correct as they are contradictory. Furthermore, no religion expresses these explanations in light of any scientific evidence, they are ancient fairytales with absolutely no evidential support. Con: "Please note that this is relevant to the debate. If Evolution based on Abiogenesis cant even explain where the universe came from, is it really all that rational."Absolutely not. Evolution and Abiogenesis do not even aim to explain how the universe started, they only aim to explain the beginning of life and it's development. Therefore, they are completely rational and justified as they explain what they intend to explain with high accuracy and loads of peer-reviewed evidential support.Con: "All atheists believe that the universe has always existed. This doesn't make any since when you think about it. Nothing can just exist. The universe cant just exist. So please. I am not forfietting, but answer my question."Again, that is completely wrong. The only thing all atheists agree upon is that they do not believe in any Gods. Some may believe the universe always existed, others may think it began through naturalistic causes, none believe that a supernatural being had anything to do with it's origin. Who are you to say the universe can't just exist? Many people believe the universe has always existed even in light of the big bang, they can be justified in believing that the universe existed in some form before the big bang. I told you in Round 3 the three possible naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe and I think 1-3 are all more likely than 4. I cannot say I know with absolute certainty which of them is true, I can only speculate on probabilities and show you why 1-3 are more rational to believe (Occam's razor) and therefore more likely to be true. Con has not provided any compelling argument or evidence for Creationism. Con has provided vague and incorrect defintions, unsupported assertions, and ad hominem attacks. I have laid out many different arguments and shown the evidence to be on the scientific side of abiogenesis and evolution. Therefore the resolution stands firm: Evolution after Abiogensis is more Rational than Creationism.