Religion is a modern day myth.

Thank you for your last entree. You said: ". .. it is ridiculous to demand a complete fossil record going back millions of years. .. this is because fossils are extremely rare. .. " Alright, maybe it is ridiculous to ask for a fossil record dating back millions of years ago to until now. You no why? Because there is no fossil record of that kind exists. 'Thank you for proving my point. ' But, lets say that whales did evolve over millions of years, you could not have given me and the voters a fossil record that shows at least 10 generations worth of information; so that we could all see at least ten generations worth of change from millions of years ago until now. Again, giving one generation doesn't prove that evolutionary processes occurred in a whale, all it gives proof of is that scientist think they found an ancient whale. So, in conclusion the evidence you gave was not sufficient enough to prove the evolutionary theory. You said: "About the whale again, evolution always follows the easiest coarse. That is why a whale learns to hold its breath for a long time instead of developing gills. " You cant just say that whales didn't develop gills because "evolution always takes the easiest coarse. " Why? Because this in fact wrong in a numerous amount of cases. You again, just claimed something that does not run parallel to the teachings of public schools. Evolution is not about just developing what is easiest there is no scientific back up for that. You see what I have been taught, is that evolution happens through survival of the fittest, and what makes an animal adapt to its surroundings the best; which in a whales case is breathing under water. Not "the easiest coarse," like you said. 'It seems to me that I understand evolution better than you, and I don't even agree with the theory. ' "In answer to your two questions, I do not need to prove that there is not a god because there is no evidence of one. " Well, if you don't need to prove the non-existence of God than why are we having this debate. It is my goal to prove that God does exist and your goal to prove that he does not. If you can't or, just won't, prove God's non-existence than why would you claim that "God is a story made up to explain things that we cannot yet understand and the ideas has been taken entirely too far. " Or you said, "One by one science is catching up to and eradicating these stories" (all quotes are from opening argument). So, since you said these things, you ARE actually obligated to prove the non-existence of God, or at least prove that evolution is a true science and frankly you have not done either one. I will say again, like I have already said once in my first response. Proving the existence of God is like proving that love is real and any other human emotion, or idea. Emotions and ideas cannot be seen, felt physically, smelt, heard, or tasted, but this does not make them unreal. Also an actual thought or emotion can not be solved mathematically. For example if I think Bob is a jerk, this is an idea but one cannot prove, by means of math, that Bob is in fact a jerk. The same rules apply to human emotions and the same rule also applies to God. God cannot be understood by math. Why? Because God is, in one sense, math itself, for he created it. This of course goes beyond human comprehension. But, to get back on the topic, Proving God's existence is like proving an emotion, or idea exists, no one can, but we know they do because without them our debate, we are having right now does not exist. So in conclusion, merely saying that because I cannot see, feel, hear, smell or taste God means he is not real is actually not true. In fact that is a very unscientific way of looking at God. See my first argument for more details on the existence of God (half my debate is devoted to it).