God does NOT exist

Thank you for your arguments.You were right,I didnt rebut to your points earlier. But I will do so now. The physical evidence that my opponent gave for God was "dung,bees,trees,condensation,etc". But all of this didn't just appear out of thin air(or by the hand of god)as potrayed in the Bible.Life started on Earth 3.5 billion years ago,and they were not humans or birds.They were microorganisms.But the birds and the bees are a consequence of evolution from microorganisms,and not god's direct creations as potrayed in the Bible. Genesis 1 says: "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep,and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." But the big bang theory says, that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, and Earth was formed only 4.5 billion years ago, after which life began a billion years later. Scientific breakthroughs,like gravitational waves and the Higgs boson point towards this theory.(Read more here: http://edition.cnn.com...) This clearly contradicts the very first line of the Bible.Does my opponent disaggree with the Big Bang theory? My opponent pointed out,that the existance of fossils of dinosaurs proves to us that dinosaurs exist.So until we find unicorn remains we cannot prove that uniorns existed.I agree.Since fossils have been brought up,I would like to say that the fossils of dinosaurs contradict the Bible.I would like to quote more lines of Genesis 1 "And God said, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.And it was so. . . 26 Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,and over all the creatures that move along the ground" Now, dinosaurs were part of these 'wild animals',and that the Bible says that the first humans were created on the same day(The sixth day according to the bible).But science has determined that dinosaurs were the dominant living beings on Earth for 135 million years starting from 231 million years ago(http://en.m.wikipedia.org...).The earliest known human remains date to only 7 million years ago.Since no one has found definitive evidence of human remains in the same layers as dinosaurs,we come to the conclusion that humans and dinosaurs are separated by millions of years of time and, therefore, didn't live together. We cannot prove something to exist without evidence.Lack of evidence for anything disproves it,unless proven otherwise.Since the lack of fossils disproves the existance of unicorns,it also disproves the co-existance of humans and dinosaurs,and in turn questions the credibility of the Bible. My opponent said, "Basically, you are assuming that something perfect has to always create perfect things." But Genesis 1 says: "God created mankind in his own image" Isnt an image an exact replica? If God is perfect,why are we humans (his 'images') tainted with jeolousy,violence, etc.You might argue,that I have misinterpreted the lines and an image is not perfect, but if God was indeed perfect and intended humans to rule over all animals and birds , why DIDNT he make them perfect? Just rulers must never have feelings of superiority over the subjects, but must work for the welfare of her/his subjects.This is obviously not the case with humans.Nobody is perfect.Since one claims God is perfect,God is a non-existant nobody.If my opponent is still convinced that there exist perfect systems, credible examples would help his/her argument greatly. In another part of his/her argument, my opponent says: "So you claim the Bible is advocating violence, yet Jesus himself healed the enemy. Do you think instead of advocating violence, that there is another reason for them to buy the swords?" No,even if jesus healed a person later,it doesnt amend the pain the person experienced.Another point being,that other than using a sword for self defence,there was no reason for jesus to ask his followers to arm themselves with swords.I am not saying that they should not defend themselves,but since Jesus is claimed to be God's son, why didn't he just pray to his father to save him and his followers.God allegedly helped Moses and created a 'gap' in the sea and gathered two of every specie in existance on to Noah's arc.Surely there was something he could have done to avoid any bloodshed. Since my opponent is convinced that God is peacefull,I would like to give examples from the old testament. "I will destroy ... both man and beast." "Every living substance that I have made will I destroy." But why does God kill all the innocent animals?What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals. 7:4 For more, : http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... Often people have argued that the old testament is wrong and does not apply anymore. But if the Old testament is wrong, what is the guarantee that the New testament is not wrong as well.Did God suddenly change his mind from violence to peace? The New Testament doesnt even mention that the old one doesnt apply.In fact,the new testament also quotes the old testament.(see http://www.blueletterbible.org...) My opponent asked, "So God already knows what everyone is going to do, etc. What if, the reason God allows these people to die, is so that they enter Heaven?".... "So wouldn't it be better if they died sooner than later?" Well, actually it is not better.Some people may be happy to go to heaven,but what about atheists and agnostics.Did God condemn them to die just because he didnt get any faith from them?You yourself stated that God knows what people are going to do.In your opinion, isnt knowing someone is about to be murdered and not doing anything about it equally sinful as murdering someone?In the book of law,it is. For the record, God does intend to kill atheists in hell.Quoting the Book of Revelations(part of new testament) "Revelation 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." (unbelieving=atheists) Is making a threat not an attempt to aler free will? My opponent said : "you talk about jail being useful, then talk badly about Hell? Why do you think Hell exists in the first place? It does the exact same thing as jail does." Firstly, I dont think Hell exists.And secondly, since God cannot affect free will,rapists will keep raping and serial killers will keep killing till they go to hell.The law gives life imprisonment to such people so that innocents are not hurt by them again.Another point,is that if an atheist is murdered,he/she doesnt get the sympathy he/she deserves in heaven(if it exists),but dies a second death in hell.Do you condemn this? Another part of my opponent's argument says, that : "First,none of this proves God doesn't exist...",in response to my allegation, that the Bible advocates negative things and is contradictory. Actually,it does prove god doesnt exist.If even one of the definitions of an entity seem to contradict the others(in this case God is supposed to be a peacekeeper,but advocates violence on occasion himself,evidence of which I have given in earlier parts of this argument),then the existance of that entity in all the particular definitions is void.I have pointed out contradictions in the beginning of this argument, and in round two. Further,if the existance of God is contradictory to unquestionable(and logical) scientific facts, then the logical conclusion is that god does NOT exist. Thanks for your arguments. PS:I am sorry for cramped text(8000 character limit)