It takes more faith to be an Atheist than a Christian

DISCLAIMERPro's performance in this this debate was disappointing.1- In his resolution, Pro claimed that it requires more faith to be an atheist than a Christian, but the only argument Pro provided was an argument against evolution, when atheism doesn't necessarily require evolution and when many Christians accept the theory of evolution, which means that Pro's main argument was a red herring fallacy that didn't satisfy his burden of proof. If Pro wanted to attack atheism through evolution, he should have specified how atheism inherently has evolution as a doctrine. This was not done.2- Pro ignored most of the arguments I made, although that could reflect negatively on his conduct as he only used about half of his character-space.3- Pro built most of his arguments on non-trusted citations(e.g CreationWiki, Creation.com) and on false appeals to authority (e.g Walter Gitt) .I will try to address every falsehood in this final round, although I've already won this debate, given that Pro refused to defend his resolution.REBUTTALSpectacular claims need spectacular evidencePro argues that evolution is a spectacular claim.Rebuttal: Evolution is a scientific theory which does not contain any spectacular claims, but is based on the natural mechanisms. Pro has failed to identify what is spectacular about evolution throughout this debate.Pro continues, " In court a judge or jury errs to simply ignore or disregard corroborating testimony from the people who were there and saw what happened. It must be considered. Christians have considered the gospel accounts of Jesus’ life and resurrection, and place trust and confidence in them."Rebuttal: Pro obviously makes a fallacy of equivocation between modern-day eye witnesses accounts and "non-trusted accounts of eye witnesses" received from "historically-problematic ancient scriptures," as Dr. Ehrman would call them. Pro has also refused to answer why I should accept his "historically-problematic accounts of eye witnesses" and reject the non-trusted accounts of eye witnesses from a Sikhi who speaks about Gurus performing unbelievable miracles?Pro continues, "Reliability of the independently-written gospels has been scrutinized by numerous legal and historical experts, including in this article http://creation.com...;Rebuttal: Pro continues with non-trusted, biased sources that support a "minority view" in Biblical scholarship that says that the Bible is reliable, ignoring citations from biblical scholars such as Dr. Bart Ehrman, Dr. Robert McNair Price, Dr. Robert E. Van Voorst [1] and many others.Pro remarks, "Con asked if we would believe a self-professed recipient of 10 headshots whom we can see is alive. With this scenario Con is appealing to extremes (a fallacy), so of course I would not accept this friend’s testimony on face-value alone. "Rebuttal: This was a comparison between Jesus' resurrection and a real-life, eye-witness testimony of someone being shot, dying and then rising up again. I don't see how that is appealing to any extremes. If anything, this was to make it clear that Jesus' resurrection is a spectacular claim that needs more than eye-witness testimonies. That is to say, Jesus being dead for three days and rising up is itself extreme. Throughout this debate, Pro didn't even manage to provide "reliable" eye witness testimonies, or ones that we are certain of their existence, to begin with, hence his support for Jesus' resurrection requires more faith than what is narrated above, but he argues using a Double Standard that he won't accept what happened above based on the eye witness testimony.Evidence for evolution - Increase in genetic informationIn Round 2, I showed that my citation clearly specified that mutations add and decrease information, and not only that, but gave academic studies that were directly concerned with the addition and removal of genetic information because of mutations:1- Increased genetic variety in a population. (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)2- Increased genetic material. (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)3- Novel genetic material. (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)Pro responded, "Gitt defines information beyond this statistical level, dealing with syntax (structure), semantics (meaning), pragmatics (intended action) and apobetics (intended result). DNA encompasses all five levels, and mutation while it can add 'static' does not add information[ref-4]."Rebuttal: The citation "ref-4" that Pro offered doesn't mention the name "Gitt." Hence, I looked up this unknown person to realize that he was Walter Gitt, a German engineer and a young Earth creationist, and therefore not an authority on genetics or even biology, for that matter. Needless to say, Pro made a false appeal to authority, as the author is not an authority on the subject, to counter almost eight peer-reviewed papers on genetics which speak about increases in genetic information.Evidence for evolution - Chromosome two argument[Pro completely ignored this argument] Evidence for evolution - American horse transition fossils[Pro completely ignored this argument]I offered an academic citation(chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm) showing that our fossil record of the American horse is almost complete. Pro completely ignored this argument and went ahead and claimed that evolution is based on plastic bones.Evidence for evolution - Australopithecus SedibaPro's non-trusted citation spoke of an argument between Tim D. White and Lee Berger, although it suspiciously didn't give any citations. After further investigation, I discovered that it was just a fabrication by a young-earth Creationist who works for The Australian Magazine (which is not even a scientific magazine).According to the Nature magazine, the argument was only on whether the fossil belongs to a species that could be called homo or not[2]. There is no mention of any attacks on the authenticity of the bones themselves, and hence I wholeheartedly reject the non-trusted account of Tim White's reaction.Evidence for evolution - bone-fragments and the evolutionary tree[Pro completely ignored this argument]I argued that although we have fragments, we can see that those fragments, perfectly and in an ordered manner, record the evolution of species, and that we don't find any conflicts in the evolutionary record.It is apparent to me that Pro is not familiar with the inductive, scientific method which builds on many fragments to induce a scientific theory that best explains them, but seems to suggest the concept of a "scientific proof" which doesn't exist in science. This summarizes our whole debate and Pro's defense of creationism... SUMMARYThroughout this debate, I showed that evolution is supported with overwhelming evidence by arguments from DNA (chromosome 2), increase of genetic material and the fossil-record.Pro, on the other hand, supported his Christian faith with non-trusted websites, unable to defend any of the unsupported claims of Christianity from resurrection, miracles, global floods, talking snakes, magical fruits, judgment days, revelations and what have you.Nevertheless, the debate is about atheism verses Christianity and not classical creationism (which many Christians reject) and evolution (which is not a perquisite for atheism). Pro waisted our time arguing against atheism by attacking evolution, which makes no sense as the theory of evolution is supported by both atheists and Christians.I thank Pro for starting this debateIt was at least interesting.CITATIONS[1] http://www.tms.edu...[2] http://www.nature.com...