Biblical Creationism is more probable than atheistic naturalism

REFUTATION[Support of God][1] “Rationality does not arise from out of nothing but only from another rationality.” My opponent asserts this again, without giving a causal mechanism or even explaining how that is. We have many examples of brains becoming more complex and more dynamic over time, and biochemists and molecular biologists are beginning to unlock the keys to the development of neural centers. When brains evolve, they acquire more reasoning and rationality as they become more complex. Naturalism explains this well, and the explanation is becoming more refined. http://abyss.uoregon.edu...[2] “God is simply outside the rules of nature. If God created the universe than He is outside of it.” The universe contains all matter and energy, which are necessary for existence. If God is outside the universe, he is outside of existence. Therefore, he does not exist in this scenario. Furhtermore, there is no evidence of the things God has purportedly done that are outside the realm of Naturalism, leading further credence to my case.http://www.uncommondescent.com...[3] “If the universe had a beginning then something started it.” The leap to saying this is God is the argument from incredulity. Somehow we’re expected to believe that while the Universe couldn’t come into existence by itself, an incredible, complex deity could come into being to be the first cause? That just adds another step, making it less plausible. http://www.infidels.org...[4] “Evolutionist could not explain with any knowledge or confidence how our moon formed.” My opponent again displays his ignorance proudly: Cosmologists and astrophysicists study this stuff, not evolutionists. The best theory again is the Giant Impact Hypothesis that hypothesizes the moon was formed from the debris when Earth was impacted by a Mars-sized object.http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] “[About DNA] Nature can not and could not create precise information like that without intention.” Evolution has no intention and no goals, it just occurs. There is a wealth of undeniable strong evidence that supports evolution from the fields of chemistry, biology, biochemisty, molecular biology, etc and population genetics. There is only weak evidence and myth acting against evolution at this point.http://www.evolutionofdna.com...[SUPPORT OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT][7] “Earth has many features that can only be explained by a worldwide flood.” In John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, he concludes based on studies of animal populations, geological markers, Ark stability, Runaway Subduction, etc. that such an event is implausible, and based on the available evidence, did not happen.http://www.trueorigin.org...[8] “We know that if a creature is denied air it dies.” I’ve proven this false. Furthermore, Loricifera are animals that live without oxygen.http://www.eu-hermione.net...[9] “Scientist have verified that creation started with time, space and matter just as the Bible stated in the very first verse.” If you try to use science to support the bible, you’re gonna have a bad time. Here are some flaws in the creation story: GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day. GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created. GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created. GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created. GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later. GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction. LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.) [PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISTIC NATURALISM][10] Already addressed. [11] Already addressed [12] “For one cannot embrace naturalism and scientific realism. Naturalism can have no legitimate support from natural science. Scientific realism entails the falsity of naturalism.” This is a bizarre claim. Naturalism only accepts what there is argument and evidence for. Scientific realism is that what we can understand through science is the real world, independent of altered perception. This goes back to a scientific assumption that we all generally perceive the physical world the same ways. Scientific realism and naturalism are consonant with the view that nature is what exists based on the evidence and argument.[13] “There is no way to use natural science to substantially prove (or disprove) an infinite universe.”Science can prove that the Universe is infinite through the use of atoms. Atom's had to have come from somewhere. So through various energetic interactions of an equal and opposite nature atoms created more atoms. But where did these atoms that created other atoms come from? Still more equal and opposite energetic reactions. These equal and opposite energetic reactions become smaller and smaller until we come to the singularity but some type of interaction had to create the singularity thus taking us deeper into the infinite Universe.[14] “All we here about are mutations of bacteria and viruses." Spelling: hear*. Again there are a litany of scientific endeavors which support and advance evolution. There is no contradictory evidence for evolution in the natural world. Furthermore, at every major university in the world where they are doing the kind of work that advances our knowledge in biology, chemistry, genetics, etc. accept evolution and conduct experiments, do research, and investigate genes that further prove evolution true. Also, there has been a new species of bird created in the last 40 years on the Galapagos Islands. Scientists there observed the speciation. http://www.wired.com...“Life was designed. It did not evolve.” No evidence to substantiate this except for an ad populum fallacy.CONTINUING MY CASENaturalism is more probableFor a quick example to demonstrate this: I give you an orange and one hand, then in your other hand I place what I call an “invisible orange.” I tell you that I’ve seen it in a dream, and that I read a book one time that told me invisible oranges existed, then I tell you that everyone I’ve ever grown up with believes in invisible oranges. Which one would you believe is more real? The one that you could see, feel, taste, smell, hear; the one that you could have anyone with scientific equipment verify the existence of; or the invisible orange? Probably you’d think the first orange was real. The difference in that example is between strong and weak evidence. Strong evidence in the physical orange can be independently verified, seen, tested, perceived, and can change things in the natural world. The invisible orange and its case rely on weak evidence: belief, dreams, hearsay, ad populum fallacy, etc. Likewise, the world we can understand around us with science and modeling is the world that has more strong evidence for its existence. Notice how my opponent didn’t completely rule out the natural world, he just went beyond evidence and argument to try to make a case for the supernatural world and its creation via a Creator God. The natural world we all generally perceive the same way. When we walk, we assume the ground will be there; when we type, we assume the keys will be there. There is consistent reliance and experience with the natural world, it can be independently verified and tested, and our use of it expands civilization. These reasons make atheistic naturalism more probable. Thank you!