Creation is the only logical explanation

Before that, one final time, concerning the burden of proof: You are participating in a debate. You are, I repeat, participating in a debate. I cannot make it more plain than I have, yet the concept of debating rules seems to elude you. Debates have rules and formalities; in this case, you presented a resolution - you are setting forth an idea and defending it while I need only disprove it. The burden of proof cannot be on the side which negates - its very name suggests it negates, it has no obligation towards offering proof and evidence. Honestly, I cannot remember the last time one was so oblivious to the concept of debating rules to the point of indigestion. If you wish to rant about lack of evidence and arguments:a) Go to a forum websiteb) Read my round 3 reply. Closely. After this explanation, I shall finally turn to the defence of my arguments. To begin with, one does not refute an argument with "everything my opponent said is false". The point of offering a rebuttal and refuting arguments is to show why and how one's arguments are not correct (I honestly cannot believe I'm explaining this right now). My opponent does not refer to any point I made and resorts to simply calling them all false. Since, unfortunately, my opponent seems to require much explaining; let me put it this way: I read a book on politics, and I decide to call everything written therein false. I just do. Because I can. Does that make it all false? No, it doesn't. I am the one who accused the author of presenting false facts, and I must prove why and how they are false. After simply dismissing all my arguments as false, without explaining why that is so, he most hypocritically calls for evidence (again); which is wonderful - considering he bears the burden of proof. My opponent then asks why I brought the Bible into the conversation, saying he doesn't need it to conclude creationism is correct. I brought the Bible into the conversation because it is the only source of "evidence" supporting creationism. As for the second part, that is the best argument ever. Seriously. I know, I simply do, there's nothing you can do about it, talk to the hand - it seems this is my opponent's favourite argument. He then repeats his mantra of "out of nothing, nothing comes" which I've addresse in round 3. Despite this, he carries on with said mantra in round 4 as well. The final part of my opponent's exposition consists of him once again shifting the burden of proof (this is really sad; I'm sorry, but it is), and offering so-called "common sense" as a rebuttal. I have shown where common sense led creationists in the past. During the course of this debate, I have witnessed firsthand how "common sense" has rendered my opponent unable to understand what the burden of proof is and how exactly one is supposed to refute arguments. I shall now shortly comment on my opponent's round 4 rant (it is only appropriate to call it a rant) - I will not offer a direct rebuttal but I feel obligated to notice a few things:a) It is hypocritical to talk about shifting the burden of proof when one bears it - nay, worse - when one refutes arguments with "everything my opponent said is false"b) Mantra repetition - seriously? I wonder if my opponent even read my round 3 rebuttal, concerning quantum physics, vacuum fluctuations etc. How can he even consider remarking that I am arguing "until I am blue in the face" while his whole argumentation is based on a single mantra (which was, by the way, completely dismantled in round 3). c) Atheists know there is a creator? No, we don't. We don't, we disbelieve and we research. Creationism believes without evidence. This is the worst case of hypocrisy I've ever seen. Show you the arguments? Read round 3 again. Can you show me your arguments? Finally, I must refer to my opponent personally - with this style of conversation, you will never find an appropriate place to voice your opinion. It seems so funny that I am the third person you are debating on this topic, that it is the third time you present no logical arguments, and yet you throw the same accusations at others? I'd take some time to think about that if I were you. I know that, formally, I shouldn't address my opponent ad hominem, but this debate has really caused me to lose my temper (which doesn't often happen) and I felt the need to do this in my closing statement.