atheism (pro) vs Christianity (con)

First, I agree that the Bible supports more of the young earth interpretation. But if you are going to talk about what the Christian claim, then you would have to look at Christianity as a whole and see what they believe on this topic. There are four interpretations of the first chapter of Genesis which are "day-age theory", "gap theory" ,evolutionary creationism the six literal 24 hour day theory. I will define each for you. Day-age theory: the days of Genesis could be a long period of time and does not necessarily have to be six literal 24-hour day. (http://www.reasons.org... ) Gap theory: There seems to be a gap of billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 "Jeremiah 4:23-27 ; Isaiah 24:1 ; 45:18 clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting imitations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels.See Ezekiel 28:12-15 ; Isaiah 14:9-14 which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon."- Scofield reference Bible. The Theistic evolutionary model: A good friend of mine who also debated Kent Hovind who is a prominent Young Earth Creationist has a model how Genesis can fit with the evolutionary model https://drive.google.com... I want to remind my opponent and the audience that this debate is Christianity vs atheism and not my opponent's assessment of Christianity vs atheism I have a question, Did the writers of the Bible have access to the technology that we have today? Was God trying to communicate to those people in a way that they could understand? When I was explaining these two scholars that showed that there is a binatarian or trinitarian nature. I am explaining why that there are theophanies and Christophanies in the Bible that we see the son and not the father. When I was asked to explain the time dilemma I said that I don't know how to explain it. The study of the different theories of time is interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... He talks about the theory of abiogenesis. He cites the Miller and Urey experiment. Here's some of the problems. They made 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acid, (both of these are toxic for life) 2% amino acids half the amino acids are left handed and half are right handed. The smallest proteins have 7-100 amino acids in precise order all left handed. RNA and DNA nucleotides are all right handed. They did not come even close to producing life in the laboratory. All we have are hypotheses on how life might have started but no clear evidences on how life started. Take away: he asked a lot of questions about examining Christianity, but if Christianity was proven false, then that would not mean that Atheism is rational. Lets ask some questions to my atheist friends: How do you account for the laws of logic in your worldview? How do you account for the uniformity of nature in your worldview? How do you account for your senses and reasoning in your worldview? How do you account for morality in your worldview? I will now allow my opponent to respond to these questions and respond to rebuttles