There is no god and evolution is a fact.

(I also would like to point out I have been playing devil's advocate on the evolutionary part of this debate,)Evolution is a Theory"About evolution being a theory or a fact. There is no way to completely prove evolution, but the evidence supporting it is strong. "A scientific fact is something which must be observable. A scientific theory is a correlation and interpretation of the facts. Two completely seperate things. Evolution is a theory. The variety of traits among a population is a fact. You cannot quantify evolution you can quantify traits. Fossils"The evolution theory is the most logical explanation for these fossils. "A fossil is nothing more "Any preserved evidence of life from a past geological age, such as the impressions and remains of organisms embedded in stratified rocks. " (1) Fossils are petrified remains. When something dies there is a chance its remains will become preserved in rock. Thus, you get a fossil. You do not need evolution to explain the existence of the fossil. But, you can use certain fossil records to support evolution. You have not done so. Similarities"This supports evolution because this theory is based on relativity of creatures. About that every creature started as one and the same cell. As I explained, these species started to change because they got split up. Creationism though, says God created all the animals as different creatures and not related to each other. Evolution seems to disprove this. "No, Creationism basically is that "humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being" usually God (2). Why could God have not created both man and say chimpanzee to be similar? Two seperate yet similar animals. Simply stating two animals have similar characteristics does not mean they have a common ancestor (unless you prove this). The picture and wikipedia articlePlease provide some analysis of the picture so I actually know what I am looking at. I cannot argue against a picture without any idea of what the picture is. As for the wikipedia source, while wikipedia is a good source, I am arguing against you. Not the article, please provide some analysis of the wikipedia article. "My point is that is is higly probably that whales used to have arms (at least whale creatures) and humans used to have tails. This goes deeper into the changing to environment theory. ""Changing to environment" is the same as natural selection just to give you the scientific term. You still have not explained how natural selection disproves a theory such as creationism. God"Because the evolution on its own does not need a guidance. Mother nature does all. "Your burden is to disprove the existence of God totally. Why can't the pantheistic view on the universe be accurate (god and nature are identical)? (3)" if you go with that logic I think God would need a creator too. "That is the point of the first mover argument. That there is something out there which was the starting point for everything when it in itself was uncreated. It was first. "Disproving God is a hard thing since it's a really abstract thing. "Nevertheless, it is still your BOP. Are you conceding half the resolution?1. . http://www.biology-online.org...2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...