There is undeniable evidence that God exists

My opponent offered four main points to provide that there is undeniable evidence that God exists. Each point fails in a number of key and fundamental ways. They do not rise to the point of being undeniable evidence, rather they are not even good evidence. My opponent argues: 1) The Bible is reliable. 2) For a universe to be possible, so must be God. 3) Evolution cannot explain how intelligence was created without God 4) Other evidence proves the Bible true. --- First, the Bible is not reliable. It depicts a vast number of events which did not actually occur. Archeology has done a lot of research on these topics and have found time and again that rather than being an accurate record, the texts are clearly a product of their time. Genesis, Noah's Ark, the Exodus, the Conquest of Israel, the Empire of David and Solomon are largely found to be utter fiction. . http://www.youtube.com... The more we look at the events claimed by the Bible the more we are finding out that they didn't happen as suggested and that the story are simply etiology. They are explaining and glorifying a past that didn't actually happen by taking from the works of the surrounding culture. The psalms, Noah's ark, and the given pantheon of gods depicted in the Bible are all taken from the region as are the people themselves. Further the claims that the early records are all very similar to each other is absolutely false. They actually varied greatly from text to text. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a fantastic insight into our understanding of exactly how diverse the ideas and texts of early Judaism were. These are actually secondary points from the actual argument we are presented with: A) We find that the texts show remarkably homogeny. B) We find that the translation and copying over the years did not change the nature of the texts. C) The text we have today is a reliable copy of the original text. D) God exists. The problems are as follows: * The texts are extremely diverse. * The translation process actually changed and altered vast amounts of the text over the years as we can see from text to text. * The texts we have today are not a reliable copy of the original text. However, more pressing is the fact that a perfect copy of a work of fiction is still a work of fiction. The argument is completely pointless! The accuracy of transcription has nothing to do with truth of the words. To establish truth she suggests that I'd be calling the 15,000 people crazy. I'm sorry but, no. Between lunatics and people-would-never-have-anything-to-do-with-something-other-than-an-absolutely-non-fiction-book, there's a wide range of individuals. We typically call them most people. --- Secondly, my opponent argued that for the universe to be possible God must be too. This is not the case. My opponent argues in her introduction that God is needed for the start of the universe or else we're suggesting everything just popped out of nothing. Whereas if we apply the same argument for God we are left with the idea that either God popped out of nothing or was created by a super God. Then the same problem arises again. It simply doesn't work. The Big Bang theory does not say that the Earth appeared from nothingness. Rather that the universe began expanding from a single point about 13.73 billion years ago. It actually says very little about where the original energy came from but many cosmologists have pointed out that it is entirely possible that the universe is simply zero sum. That the old joke, "Why is there time? So that everything doesn't happen at once! ", might actually be pretty close to right. That everything only exists because there is time and space to keep it apart. That if you added up all the positive energies and negative energies in the universe it might very well turn out to be equal. So rather than having the universal equation of the big bang be 0 = 1, it may very well be 0 = 1 + (-1). Pro further argues that the constants of the universe are actually so finely set that we require a divine fine tuner to make the universe possible. We don't have any idea what kinds of universes would be formed by different constants, a wide array of them might lead to fine universes. The speed of light is equal to 1c, the gravity force is equal to 1g, the electron charge is -1e. The constants we hear so much about are really conversion factors from the natural units into human units. Miles / hour, meters/second, furlongs/fortnight are all made up units. The natural units of such things are always one. Moreover, they are all tied together (relativity et al). If the speed of light were faster the charge of the electron would change. If the gravitational force were different then Planck's constant would be different. They couldn't move independently anyhow. My opponent also claims that the requirements for life are a vast and delicate balance; they aren't. The biochemistry of early life is largely unknown and beyond being unknown we don't even have a good grasp on the most basic requirements. It's impossible to say which molecules are needed and in what quantities and at what initial complexities are required. We created base nucleotides in simple jars of goop, and we don't see any fathomable roadblock from creation of the basic aminos to creation of complex life. If anything the jump from single to multicellular life is probably a larger step than from life to non-life. Further, life evolves to the environment rather than the environment to the life. If this planet were unable to produce any form of life (the number and types of forms possible are unimaginable) then there are certainly more planets around the 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 other stars in our universe (that's just the number of stars we can see). With that many chances and such a wide variety of possible worlds and possible lifeforms, it's not very odd that life should arise. Now, considering this, realize that we wouldn't be having this debate on only planet where life didn't arise. The chances that life arose here 100% because we're here talking about it. It couldn't be any other way. Thirdly, Dembski is wrong. Darwin didn't show that the appearance of design in the natural world was wrong. He showed how the designing work could be done by reproduction and heredity. What Paley observed as intricate structures needing an explanation, Darwin explained how they could form without any guiding hand. Darwin's insight was a mechanism to do the work Paley rightfully saw needed to have been done. There's certainly a lot of useful information in DNA, but that doesn't imply that evolution fails to explain how it got there; it does (you're simply making this silly assertion bold-faced). While the brain seems to be very impressive. The basic functioning of a neuron can be explained in a few minutes. We have a skull full of them and they do some pretty awesome stuff working together, but so do muscles and bones. --- Finally, my opponent gave a list of "other evidence" which simply amounted to nonsensical stories that only the incredulous would believe, which also require massive leaps to accept. * Wheel doesn't mean Chariot. Chariot doesn't mean Pharaoh's Chariot from the Exodus story. There's plenty of wheels kicking. Also, he didn't find a chariot wheel. * "This is Noah's Ark! " - No. That's a ridge. It's made of rock. * Tacitus records the existence of Christians. Nobody disputes Christians exist. * The existence of a copper mine does not mean it's a copper mine of a large empire that we can't find any trace of. It's a copper mine. --- In short, my opponent has failed to meet her burden. In attempting to establish that undeniable evidence that God exists she presented laughable arguments for the accuracy of the Bible, and poor understanding of science.