Based on the available evidence, God probably doesn't exist.

I have been waiting for pro to present his position supporting “Based on the available evidence, God probably doesn't exist.”Please present your position.I will respond to your position in round 4.Remember, as PRO you need to present a position, that I (CON) try to refute.So far you have only been responding to my points and have not yet presented your position.You say “I may have the burden of proof, but that doesn't let you off supporting your side with facts.” Actually it does. You are PRO. You need to present and support your position. Then I respond your claims with evidence that I hope convinces people that your position is wrong. That is how the PRO position in a debate works.I want to respond to a few statements from past rounds.Please note - these statements are a particular kind of fallacy that is unforgivable in science. Both claim “because I don’t know what this does, I can claim it has no function” Atheists have long abused theists for using God as the final answer for ever unknown. These examples are just two more times atheists have said “it doesn’t do anything. It must be evidence against God” (that, by the way, is a different type of fallacy) Let’s look at your statements, and then at some evidence “Humans have an appendix, even though it does nothing but cause problems. This makes sense if it's leftover from our grass-eating ancestors.” I hope the facts make you reconsider your statement. - “Aug. 21, 2009 — The lowly appendix, long-regarded as a useless evolutionary artifact, won newfound respect two years ago when researchers at Duke University Medical Center proposed that it actually serves a critical function. The appendix, they said, is a safe haven where good bacteria could hang out until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea, for example.” [1] “"Once the bowel contents have left the body, the good bacteria hidden away in the appendix can emerge and repopulate the lining of the intestine before more harmful bacteria can take up residence,"”[2] The idea of the human microbiome project [3] is that bacteria make up a huge part of your life and health. The numbers are extreme.“It turns out that we are only 10 percent human: for every human cell that is intrinsic to our body, there are about 10 resident microbes — including commensals (generally harmless freeloaders) and mutualists (favor traders) and, in only a tiny number of cases, pathogens. To the extent that we are bearers of genetic information, more than 99 percent of it is microbial.” [4] The benefit of the appendix is quite noticable. For example, “Research performed at Winthrop University-Hospital showed that individuals without an appendix were four times more likely to have a recurrence of Clostridium difficile” [6]“Junk DNA. 98% of our genome doesn't do anything Removing it has no effect on the organism. This makes sense if adaptations were acquired through trial and error, or if God was a monkey on a typewriter.”Even the wikipedia article you reference says you are wrong. You call noncoding DNA junk that doesn’t do anything, when the known purposes of non coding DNA are quite varied. “In genomics and related disciplines, noncoding DNA sequences are components of an organism's DNA that do not encode protein sequences. Some noncoding DNA is transcribed into functional noncoding RNA molecules (e.g. transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, and regulatory RNAs), while others are not transcribed or give rise to RNA transcripts of unknown function. The amount of noncoding DNA varies greatly among species.” [7] AND “The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project suggested in September 2012 that over 80% of DNA in the human genome "serves some purpose, biochemically speaking” [7] What you are calling junk DNA that doesn’t do anything is shown to have many different roles. I give only one example here, because one example is enought to refute your claim. NOTE SSR= Simple Sequence Repeats (or junk to you) “In the study conducted by chief scientist, Rakesh K. Mishra and his group, it was found that one of the SSRs, the GATA repeat had significant regulatory role in gene expression by functioning as a boundary, separating functional domains of genome. “ [8] “One of the prominent SSRs the GATA tetranucleotide repeat has preferentially accumulated in complex organisms. GATA repeats are particularly enriched on the human Y chromosome, and their non-random distribution and exclusive association with genes expressed during early development indicate their role in coordinated gene regulation.” [9]It is as though you are saying “brakes on a care are useless. They don’t make it go”Regulation is important.You ask - “Why would God give his creations useless traits that prove Evolution and cast doubt upon Intelligent Design” I feel a need to respond to this. The two examples you list have been proven faulty. Appendices have a purpose. SSR and other non coding DNA have a purpose. Useless traits (if they existed) prove nothing except the creativity of God and the wonder and variety of creation. Did you mean to capitalize the word evolution as a proper noun or the name of your deity? What argument do you present to say that God did not design evolutionary processes into his world? How do the ideas of natural selection and variation within species “cast doubt” on God’s design of life and the universe?You ask -“If creating humans was God's reason for making the world, why would he include redundant features” What makes you think you know God’s reasons for creating anything? Why does a painter paint? Why does a singer sing? Why does a debater debate? I know God well, and He knows me perfectly. I would not presume to know his motives for creation. As to redundant features, are you referring to the appendix and non coding DNA again?Good luck in the next round.I await your response.[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com...[2] http://www.sciencedaily.com...[3] http://commonfund.nih.gov...[4] http://www.nytimes.com...[5] http://www.dailypaul.com...[6] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://www.thehindu.com...[9] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...