It takes more faith to be an Atheist than a Christian

Con’s burden of proof consists of proving that belief in Jesus’ resurrection requires more faith than belief in atheistic evolution. Here I aim to focus on evidence. "Faith" I defined in my opening argument. REBUTTAL Con claims, "Pro here commits a loaded question fallacy that implies that atheists don't believe in God because they can't see Him. " Rebuttal: My actual implication is affirmed and clarified in my next sentences after the question, so it is NOT a loaded question fallacy as I did provide justification which con has not refuted. Con argues, "It seems to me that Pro is committing a fallacy of equivocation between the word "atheist" and the word "evolutionist. "" Rebuttal: I completely agree that atheists are not necessarily evolutionists. Con then affirms that evolution is "most supported" and Con has not identified any alternative to evolution in which atheists believe, nor does it seem that Con has disputed my assumption that all of us believe something about the origin of mankind. Can we put a figure on the percentage of atheists who are evolutionists I wonder? Would it be around 99% perhaps? By accepting this debate Con would have noted that I specifically asked that we compare "1. Atheistic evolution" with "2. The resurrection of Jesus". Con stated, "the theory of evolution is one of the most supported scientific theories" Rebuttal: Here Con has chosen to appeal to majority sentiment. Therefore, Con commits a fallacy of consensus. Con quotes the Smithsonian website emphasizing the numbers of fossils, "From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. With the rapid pace of new discoveries every year, this impressive sample means that even though some early human species are only represented by one or a few fossils, others are represented by thousands of fossils" (Con’s emphasis) Rebuttal: My original argument is that the best candidates for the missing link, such as 'Lucy', are made up of bone fragments that are dubious at best. Con has not identified any specific candidate, but instead refers to 1000s of specimens as stated on the Smithsonian website. Incidentally, the very first specimen listed there is actually 'Lucy', and the photograph clearly shows the stark contrast between the actual fragmented bones and the remainder of the skeleton which has been made up, either fabricated or rendered (by people) for display. See the specimen yourself on this link: . http://humanorigins.si.edu... Con remarks, "This sounds like a massive collection of fossils with complete and detailed fossils, not "dubious bone fragments. "" Rebuttal: I completely agree with Con that it sounds like this. Yet inspection of the specimens reveals that the fossils are overwhelmingly comprised of reconstructed bone fragments, which could certainly have come from fully human or fully ape skeletons. So in response to my question about transitional fossils Con has relied on some "sounds like" evidence. Confidence and trust in “sounds like” evidence amounts to faith. I wonder if we can have this same level of faith in this explanation from the exact same page of the pro-evolution Smithsonian website: "While the existence of a human evolutionary family tree is not in question, its size and shape – the number of branches representing different genera and species, and the connections among them – are much debated by researchers and further confounded by a fossil record that only offers fragmented look at the ancient past. " [ref-1] (emphasis added) Con alleges, "I take it that Pro is not familiar with academic researches [SIC] and experiments that show the exact opposite of what Pro claims. According to (Zhang et al. 2002), RNASE1B mutated from RNASE1 having an increase in genetic material[2]. According to (Brown et al. 1998), parts of yeast, after 450 generations, mutated further with an increase in genetic material[3]. According to (Adami et al. 2000) and (Schneider 2000), the process of mutation and selection is generally observed to increase information and complexity [4,5]. " (emphasis added) Rebuttal: I take it that Con is not familiar with any of the four academic papers cited, because the papers do NOT ever refer to a specific observed "increase in genetic material". Incidentally, a simple Google search reveals a webpage which cites all of these sources in an order and manner curiously reminiscent of what Con has written, yet what con states certainly seems to be a deceptive and deliberate misrepresentation of the original. Compare what Con stated with what the webpage actually states: "A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example: … • RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002) • Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998) . .. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000). " [ref-2] (emphasis added) So we can see here that nowhere does it say that there was a specific observed increase of information, other than in simulations. If Con's evidence for evolution was to find this webpage and manipulate what it states, then such falsified evidence needs no further consideration. Con claims, "The genealogy of Jesus is different in each gospel, explicitly contradictory and clearly incomplete, which makes it plausible that the genealogies were based on made-up names and the names of historic figures used in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to King David. .. According to many Biblical scholars, such genealogies are blatant fabrications[6]. " Rebuttal: Con's cited source here does not support these claims at all. Nowhere in the book does it say the genealogies are blatant fabrications, nor does it say the genealogy is "clearly incomplete". Rather, the author argues the exact opposite. Please consider what it actually says: "That either Matthew or Luke simply invented the names he records is neither consistent with their known concern for detail, nor is there any obvious motive for it. .. …probable explanation of the difference [between Matthew and Luke] is that while Luke records the actual physical genealogy of Joseph, Matthew records the line of succession to the throne, the 'official' genealogy. This would not necessarily pass from father to son, but would remain within the family. (The verb he uses for beget (gennao) is used of a relationship which is not genetic in 1 Cor. 4:15; Phm. 10, and the same metaphor was used in the relationship between a Rabbinic teacher and his pupil. Cf. also Ps. 2:7)" [ref-3] As this source argues that the different genealogies complement each other, how is that "explicitly contradictory"? I ask Con, are you sure this is the source you intended to cite? Please be careful not to cite the wrong source or misrepresent sources. Con explains, "I don't find myself with many unsupported assumptions such as those spectacular claims and assumptions in the Christian faith. " Rebuttal: Here Con makes the assumption that there are many unsupported assumptions in the Christian faith, but apparently Con has made this assumption without supporting it which would make it a fallacy of begging the question. CITATIONS [ref-1] same as Con’s cited source [1] [ref-2] . http://www.talkorigins.org... [ref-3] page 72 of Con’s cited source [6]