The creation story of any one religion is no more or less probable than that of another religion.

I sincerely apologize for forfeiting the round. The other day when I checked the clock I thought that I had more time than I did. Then when I got home from school the next day to post my round it was already forfeited. I won't let that happen again. "For instance some of the Roman accounts of creation are almost deistic and could apply to more or less any theistic creation rendering them more likely than the very specific creation myths of the Abrahamic religions." I was really looking for a more in-depth account of a specific example so that I could address it. However, in the absence of this, I'll have to deal with a broader argument. We can interpret likelihood in two ways The first is realistic likelihood. This is taking into account only contingencies that we judge to be realistically possible. The second is literal likelihood. This is taking into account all contingencies, the number of which is infinite. If we are to take into account only that which is realistically likely, then all non-scientifically viable contingencies are equally incorrect, and therefore equally unlikely, and therefore equally likely. If we are to take into account all contingencies, then all situations are equally statistically likely, because there are a never-ending amount of all contingencies. "I merely used that as an example of a specific celtic creation myth (btw my source is the Edinburgh Museum hence not posting it) of which a certain part of it is not necessarily counter factual and easily reconcilable with evidence. And yes there are religions that are more scientifically accurate than others. For instance some creation myths (from China, north America and India [1]) say that the world was (or is) balanced on the back of a turtle which is obviously false." It doesn't seem like you are addressed the logic in my rebuttal, about the how and why and whatnot. You just made a claim and provided another example that you think is unlikely to be the truth. "There are also new age religions (and yes these are legitimate religions) which have creation stories that are easily reconcilable with modern scientific theories (mainly the "big bang" theory)." If they become too similar to the Big Bang Theory, then they are no longer non-scientific religious beliefs. For example, a Catholic priest came up with the Big Bang Theory because it supported Chistianity, but in the rules I excluded stories that are simultaneously religious and scientific. "Basically a lie is very unlikely to be true. Creation myths do not exist in a vacuum but as part of a larger religion (usually) and the truth or falsehood of the religion will effect the truth or falsehood of the creation myth." This is, in fact, aptly addressed by my statement that you were rebutting when you wrote that, which runs thusly: "Again, the "what," "how," and "why." I don't see how the motives behind a religion make its stories any more or less probable." So, yeah, my argument extends on this point. "Also I would ask my opponent to make an argument rather than just refuting mine." I did make one. I posted it already. It runs thusly: "Because I barred out any mainstream scientific religious creation stories (such as the Big Bang theory), none of the religious stories agree with mainstream science. Therefore, in the eyes of science, all of them are equally wrong, and thus equally improbable, and thus equally probable." I realize that this seems rather short to be the present basis of what is my argument, but it is really a very simple concept. I cannot, as of right now, see any flaws in it, but that, as I mentioned in the rules, is the reason that I started this debate; to test my idea.