atheism (pro) vs Christianity (con)

My opponent does not provide any evidence for his standpoint so it is an obvious concession for his view since he does not meet his BOP. R1) age of the universe "First, I agree that the Bible supports more of the young earth interpretation. But if you are going to talk about what the Christian claim, then you would have to look at Christianity as a whole and see what they believe on this topic." I could not care less what christians believe. I care more about what the your religious texts and claims say and when they contradict the big bang by saying the universe is young counting the genealogies from adam to Jesus to Now and also using the time from the creation of the universe (which is 6 days because it is set by day and night and morning and evening just like normal days, the word used is "yom" which means literal day and God even compares the length of his week to the length of our week in exodus 20: 8-11) Then you arrive a the conclusion that the universe is 6 days apart from adam and adam is 6,000 years older than jesus using genealogies of the bible in Genesis 4,5,11 and matthew 1 and the common fact that Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. at most the universe is twelve thousand years using all loopholes and interpretations like 2 Peter 3:8, ". . . one day is with the Lord as a thousand years . . ..". These numbers are obviously ridicolous since radioactive decay gives an age of 4.5 billion years to some rocks and some trees are 80,000 using carbon dating or growth rings. So Christianity makes false claims. Plus even if days meant millions of years what is the point of calling it day one or day two or day 4? R2) Nature of this debate "I want to remind my opponent and the audience that this debate is Christianity vs atheism and not my opponent's assessment of Christianity vs atheism" Well I am showing you facts (like the round earth) using empirical evidence (like pictures), the fact that Christianity makes false claims about reality and some things that we observe means Christianity is false because it contradicts facts meaning Christianity's reliability is undermined and you should not believe any other claims that it makes. R3) Time trilemma "When I was asked to explain the time dilemma I said that I don't know how to explain it. The study of the different theories of time is interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org...; How does this disprove the time trilemma? Time's existence is objective and we know this from phenomenon like time dilation. If time's existence is objective (not experience), that is all we need for the time trilemma to stand. R4) abiogenesis "He talks about the theory of abiogenesis. He cites the Miller and Urey experiment. Here's some of the problems. They made 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acid, (both of these are toxic for life) 2% amino acids half the amino acids are left handed and half are right handed." Do not know where Pro got those numbers from. Would like to see some evidence or a source. This is a formal debate and you should not be making claims without evidence. If there was tar in the results, you do realize that tar is a thick, viscous black fluid and no black fluids were observed in the results. Carboxylic acids are actually organic molecules evident in their own name. If organic molecules were present in the results, that means life came from non-life Here are the real results of the miller-urey experiment : http://www.truthinscience.org.uk... R5) questions "How do you account for the laws of logic in your worldview?" They are neccessary laws and abstract laws. Neccessary things by definition have no cause and no explanation. That is like saying why does the number 7 exist? or why does the color blue smell so delicious? It is an incoherent question. (https://www.jstor.org...) (https://www.researchgate.net...) "How do you account for the uniformity of nature in your worldview?" Laws of physics. "How do you account for your senses and reasoning in your worldview?" My brain has chemistry of hormones and forms pathways among neurons that allow me to think and have consciousness and have perceptions of my surroundings. We know it is parts of the brain that does this and not a guy in a 2000-year-old book because babies who do not have those parts of the bran are not capable of those cognitive functions but when they mature and have those parts of the brain then they are able to think and have consciousness. The manipulated variable is the existence of parts of the brain and the responding variable is obviously the consciousness and the ability to think. http://bigthink.com... http://thebrain.mcgill.ca... https://www.seeker.com... "How do you account for morality in your worldview?" Morality is not objective and absolute. It evolves overtime. In the past, slavery was okay and women's rights were a joke same with homosexuality being condemned. Nowadays, homosexuals have rights, women have rights and slavery is punishable. This proves morality is subjective. Even today there is subjectivity in morality, polygamy is encouraged in middle east while it is punishable in the west. Child marriage is okay in India but it is a punishable offence in the west. Homosexuals are killed in arabia but given rights here in the west. I account for the morality of the west which i align with by reasoning. Immanuel Kant said "reason is the source of morality". I base my morality on empathy and reasoning and what makes sense not a book written by cavemen or bedouins. Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): 5Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. 1 Corinthians 14:34"35 (NIV) 34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Deuteronomy 17 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Is this how you account for your morality? because Jesus endorsed the old testament Mathew 5 : 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. .... 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Con drops most of his rebuttals to other points.