Religion is a modern day myth.

Thank you for writing your first argument. Now, to start off, I agree with Amphibian to an extent. When I am debating Amphibian, I will probably use the word "God" many times throughout my arguments, but whenever I use God, I am referring to the Christian God. This is why I say that I agree with Amphibian partially, because all other religions are, I believe, are false and made up. "One by one science is catching up to and eradicating these stories." I beg to differ, Christianity is not just a blind faith, proven by nothing but spiritual beliefs. This topic is still widely debated, and there is enough scientific evidence to prove that the odds of there being a God are the same odds, if not better, to the theory of evolution. According to "Channel 1 News" they are now considering to put print science books that support the evidence of God, in Texas. These science text books would then be printed and shipped to all public schools. It could seem that the facts of evolution are actually becoming weaker and weaker and the facts of there being a God stronger and stronger as technology increases and becomes more advanced. You say in your opening argument just the opposite. Also there are so many topics of humans that evolution can not and never will be able to explain. Why? because in order to believe in the theory of evolution you must exclude all possible evidence of God. If you do not believe in a religion I am assuming you believe in evolution. So my debate will be against that Scientific theory. Proving evolution wrong: Evolution is based upon Darwin's "idea" of Natural Selection, natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. It also explains why all animals evolved different traits to cope inside their habitat more efficiently. But there are many flaws within this theory, for instance, why is it still true that whales can not breath under water, or the fact that eskimos always had a mixed sin, instead of a dark skin that helps take in the sons heat? Also, why is it that countries near the equator tend to have populations of people with dark skin, instead of a lighter skin which wold reflect the sun, therefore making it seem less hot? Another thing worth highlighting is, evolution fails to show any fossils that support the time between a fish per say evolving into a land creature, again I repeat, evolution does not show any fossil evidence of missing leeks (the stages of an animal gradually evolving). If this evolution is true shouldn't there be millions of fossils showing the evidence of missing links and yet there is none. so, here is a question why should one believe evolution, when the it can't even scientifically prove the process of animals gradually evolving? The only answer for this is "well, because there can't be a God." Saying this holds know impact in a debate if you cannot prove the non existence of God. Here is a challenge, Amphibian, in your next debate don't just say there are missing links from the evolution of one animal to the next, PROVE IT by giving me some source (link) that I can access that backs up you argument, you had none of these in your opening argument. Also, how did life begin? The Big Bang? Do you believe that it always? These are somethings you should have explained before saying that religion is just a myth. Can you explain how the universe began? There are a lot of different theories, none of which science can prove. Yo see, if one does not believe in God the beginning of the Universe can not be answered without there being a God to start it all in the first place. Besides evolution being ultimately unproven it is the only scientific theory that makes things better instead of worst. For instance, thermodynamics prove that if something is hot it will eventually cool down, or medal starts off clean and overtime deteriorates, stars are massive balls of gas and eventually die out, all living organisms live and then die. These are all principles of science. But evolution goes against the whole aspect of science entirely, you see, in evolution everything tightens up and gets better with everything else it is just the opposite. Proving God's existence: 1. The non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a Universal negative. 2. The concept, design, and intricate details of our world necessitate need an intelligent designer. 3. Proving God's existence is like proving whether sugar is sweet or not, there is nothing that says it is, accept your senses. One could say that God does not exist because I can not see him. Well, you cant see love but it obviously is real. You cannot see an idea but our ideas are being expressed through these debates, thus, they are real. The point is, if you say God does not exist then your very ideas have no meaning, in fact, how do you even know that the air your breathing is actual air? I know because I believe in a God who designed the universe. Any of these questions have still been unanswered out side the idea of God. Nothing is for sure with out God. Please feel free to argue against this point in you response. (This was a broad summary of a much more complex issue that would take more than the remaining characters I am aloud to type.) 4. One may say "if God were real then why does he not show himself, if he did then i would believe." God did show himself, Jesus was God. Many NON-CHRISTIANS even have written about Jesus' miracles, some of them were healing the sick, and raising people from the dead, again non-Christians recorded these things. Historians also say that Jesus was not only seen by his apostles after his resurrection but by 500 other recorded witnesses as well. C.S. Lewis stated that "he couldn't have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. He didn't even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so he had to be God." Please answer these questions in your next response: 1. Prove to everyone that will read this debate that God is not real, give scientific evidence to back it up along with sources? 2. If God is not real than how do we know we are not all in some kind of delusional world where there are no morals or real objects? 3. Explain how it is possible for evolution to be true with no fossils that give scientists evidence of an animal gradually showing an animal evolve? I look forward to your response. charles15