Atheism vs. Theism

As this will be my final post for this debate, I will be sure to make my rebuttals long and complex. Rebuttals I would, however, like to talk about what has occurred this debate that could result in a Pro vote by the voters. First of all, in his rebuttals, my opponent has directly denied evolution, when he said, "While there are some theists in support of molecules-to-man evolution, I am not one of them. " Readers, I want to point out that evolution is a proven scientific fact. It had been studied and proven time and time again. It's repeatable. My opponent has denied these facts, even after I gave a genuinely viable list of proof. Unfortunately, I feel I must do this again, for my opponent has done what all theists do: Deny the proof so that it works with their beliefs, which is a point that I covered in my first argument. How does my opponent disprove the 4 million year old remains of evolutionary ancestors to humans? Using DNA testing, we can prove with 99.9% certainty that these fossils are indeed ancestors to modern humans. Here is an improved list of why evolution is a proven fact: 1. Behavior is a genetic trait that is passed on from generation to generation. Our ape ancestors share many of the traits we have today, owing to the fact that modern hominids, such as chimpanzees, have the same traits. 2. Human fossils, which allow for DNA testing, give us solid proof. 3. Again, genetics is the foundation of proof, for it proves, with 99.9% certainty, that Homo sapiens have evolved over an extensive period of time. 4. Vestigial and homologous structures, are again, backed up by DNA 5. Protein sequencing is very similar across certain animals alive today 6. Natural selection is, again, proven. It works because certain genetic mutations occur. "Observed mutations have occurred by mobile introns, gene duplications, recombination, transpositions, retroviral insertions (horizontal gene transfer), base substitutions, base deletions, base insertions, and chromosomal rearrangements. " If my opponent - or any readers - would like to read a long, reputable essay regarding the proof of evolution, use this site: . http://www.talkorigins.org... The next point I wish to go over is what my opponent said in this quote: "I carefully defined a worldview as a set of one's presuppositions. I cited the epistemological problem of infinite regression to argue that everyone has presuppositions: unjustified beliefs about reality. Assumptions. " First of all, yes, everyone assumes things. However, assumptions are narrowly fact. They are not evidence, they are guesses - Educated guesses, maybe, but still guesses. What Atheists use when arguing is simply fact. That's it. Facts over guessing. The next point I want to discuss is my opponent's argument by using TAG (Transcendental Argument for God's Existence). My opponent claims that God can exist outside of time because He's dimensionally transcendental, which means he can exist outside the realm of physical reality. This argument is all fine and dandy until you say "Wait. God coming into existence without a creator is just as logical as the universe coming into existence without a creator. " Why would there be an extra step? There wouldn't. God simply does not exist. Even if a god did exist, he or she would not bother creating a universe. Why would they? The answer I commonly get to this is this: "He was bored. " I laugh at this, for an all-powerful being would not simply become bored. If my opponent has another reason for a god creating the universe, I would like to hear it. If not, then a god did not create the universe, proving my opponent incorrect. Another point I would like to talk about is my opponent's question about logic: "if atheism is true, how are the laws of logic universal and unchanging? How are they reliable for acquiring knowledge? " My opponent is asking why logic is universal and exists throughout the universe. I want to begin by saying that I did indeed misinterpret what my opponent said. I apologize for that, and will not do so in this round. By logic, I will assume my opponent is talking about the definitions that go as such: 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. 2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: 3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. 4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions 5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness This is what logic is and it is what I will be discussing. First of all, logic is what is used to describe fact. "Evolution is logical. " Yes, it is logical. It is also a fact. "The tide goes in. The tide goes out. " Yes, science tells us that the moon's gravity does this. Therefore, the tide is very logical. So to reword my opponent's question, he is asking the following: "If Atheism is true, how do facts remain the same? How are they reliable for acquiring logical facts? " The answer is simple: Logic and facts go together, and the basic fundamental laws of reality in the universe say that logic does not change, for facts to do not change. "I have no problem with the fact that the earth is old. There are many theists that believe likewise. " Indeed. I thank my opponent for agreeing with the fact that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and that the Universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years old. "My opponent criticizes the Old Testament for condoning evil. Unfortunately, my opponent already stated that there is no objective morality, so his arguments here are just the ranting of one's moral opinion. " First of all, this is a debate. I am clearly stating my opinion on the objective morality of Theism, which is what one does in a debate: They argue their point. I am aware that morality is relative, for I was the one that said so. My opponent is also arguing his opinion. "Facts and data are just that: facts and data. They don't prove or disprove anything other than the event they observed. " Actually, that is incorrect. Evolution is a proven scientific fact. It consists of facts and data which disprove Creationism. Evolution disproves Adam and Eve, which disproves original sin, which disproves most of the Bible. Facts can disprove things. "My opponent engages in pure conjecture about ancient knowledge. He offers no evidence to back up this claim. " Ah, good. My opponent admits that most of Theism is "pure conjecture about ancient knowledge". My opponent refuted my statement that "God is impossible," by saying that I cannot explain why the big bang occurred, so the logical explanation must be 'a god did it. ' "Furthermore, my opponent has no warrant to claim he knows what is beyond the Big Bang singularity. " No, I did not claim that. The truth is that I don't know. 'I don't know' is a perfectly reasonable answer, because it's the truth. I don't know what happened before the big bang… My opponent doesn't either. Nobody does. When my opponent says I am making unfounded opinions about God being impossible, he is doing the same. The truth is that neither of us can prove what happened before the big bang. The only thing I do differently is that I use science; I use research; I use data. My opponent is perfectly fine with sticking with "I don't know, God did it. " "I don't know, God did it" is not proof at all. It is a struggled attempt to rationalize what is not understood. My opponent mentioned the 'God of the Gaps', which I was happy about, for I wanted to explain this. First of all, God was invented by humanity to explain the unknown. At that time, the God of the Gaps was very large, because we could not explain things. Now, the God of the Gaps is very small and only exists outside the universe. We know how the universe works, so a god is simply not needed. Conclusion Though my opponent claims that I have not, I have indeed provided a strong, viable case for Atheism. Throughout this debate, I have shown twice that Evolution is a proven fact. I have refuted each argument he made. Again, I apologize for misinterpreting some of my opponent's arguments. It is a common mistake. My opponent seems knowledgeable about this topic and this debate may be a close win, however I want to say why the voters should lean to a Pro vote. I have provided the facts. My opponent has not. The Atheist's argument is never proven wrong my the Theist's argument and that is what I have proven in this debate. I have enjoyed this debate and wish to say one more thing: Vote Pro. Works Cited 1. . http://humanorigins.si.edu... 2. . http://www.talkorigins.org... 3. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...