Science makes Atheism hard to believe

And the fossil record is not ordered. It is, actually. I would ask you to produce some examples of out-of-place fossils that violate the established order (order, not timescale, as we cannot be certain that the exact timescale is correct, but you will still not find drastically out-of-order fossils with no possible explanation), but as this is the final round, I'll try to bring my points to a close. Survival of the fittest proves variation of a . .. a trait available to human kind. Yes, but changes in size aren't the only changes that evolution says can happen over time. "Reworking" and "downwash" are used to explain fossils not in agreement with Darwinian Theory; "overthrusts," to be discussed shortly, are used to explain much larger numbers of such fossils. Specific examples of these would be needed to address this point. In general, I guess what I can say is that the Earth doesn't care for our efforts to classify or discover the truth. Occasionally, geological processes are going to throw a wrench or two in the works, but it's rarely difficult to see what happened in such cases. Says who? The universal religion czar? If someone declares themselves a Muslim, but doesn't recite the Shahada, Con has authority to declare them not a Muslim? Where does this authority come from? Allah? No, the definition of a Muslim. If you're a Muslim, you believe in the Shahada. I never said one has to recite the Shahada, but all the sources I have read say that doing so with true conviction makes one a Muslim. If X = {a, b, c} and Y = {apples, oranges, peaches}, then | X | = | Y | because { (a, apples), (b, oranges), (c, peaches)} is a bijection between the sets X and Y. The cardinality of each of X and Y is 3. Cardinality is a simple enough concept to not have to directly copy+paste an explanation. (. http://gutenberg.us...), (. http://www.liquisearch.com...) If X = infinity and Y = darwinian evolution, and X and Y exist in relative space together, infinity + darwinian evolution = all possibilities given to darwinian evolution, and infinitely. Honestly, I am fairly certain that you're making no sense here. I'll try anyway. An infinite universe wouldn't mean that infinity "exists," because it's just an abstract concept describing the universe. Infinity = the 100% chance that the highest possible being by darwinian means must exist and infinitely. Do you mean that an infinite universe dictates that the "highest possible being" (which isn't a concept that exists in evolution, by the way) exists in an infinite quantity in the universe? Firstly, how do you know evolution can create immortal, ethereal beings by its processes? It is irrelevant. The equations used to describe the universe are simply mathematics. These mathematical facts are used in the construct of String Theory. It's like saying 2+2 = 4 is wrong because it was used in an unproveable theory. Again, I have to take you back to your own source, who only said that he can show you these codes if you accept his model of the universe. Drake states that given the uncertainties, the original meeting concluded that N = L, and there were probably between 1000 and 100,000,000 civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. And the numbers from the original meeting were very favorable for life, and we do not know if they are accurate. The whole Drake Equation is conjecture, and any numbers plugged in can only be guesses based on a sample size of a few planets. If you have known values for the various parameters, feel free to tell scientists. Until you do, any argument made solely on the basis of the Drake Equation or the Fermi Paradox is going to be laughably weak. Since all you've provided is a conjecture-based argument, I'll provide some conjectural responses. ()() This is a disproving of a negative. Do I have proof that fairies, unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters do not exist? Of course not. The burden of proof is on Con on that one. Show us the aliens. I'm aware of this obviously, and I've never claimed that aliens exist. Just like god, I am agnostic toward the idea of aliens and await the evidence. You, however, made it pretty clear that you were confident that life didn't exist elsewhere in the universe. "Hmmm. .. looks like it's just us. .. " Saying the Fermi Paradox suggests anything meaningful is, as I said, a weak argument, yet you still seem to be using it as a reason for implying that there aren't aliens anywhere in the universe. It may be the case that it looks like it's just us, but on the scale of the universe, looking like it's just us is what we'd expect in many cases whether or not we're truly alone. * I'd just like to note, since this is closing statements, that Pro never provided a workable definition of "kind," or showed a definition of atheism that includes evolution as a core belief.