Atheism is more probable than Christianity

I feel that Pro has put himself at a big disadvantage. He can finish his defense in the next round, but I doubt he will be left enough room to answer these rebuttals. But, we shall see. Now, Atheism AS OF RIGHT NOW, is dependent upon evolution. Complete atheists cling to evolution, as such, the theist merely needs to show errors in it, and specifically, Christians need to show evidence for Christianity(coming up). My opponent states that evolution does not explain the origin of life. That's fine, but then Christianity becomes more probable than atheism. For Christianity provides an answer to life's greatest question: Where did we come from? More on this later. Defense of question 1 Now, as a former evolutionist, I am quite familiar with the arguments evolutionists bring up. My opponent appeals to Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest to answer my question. There is a huge problem here though. 1. Thousands of animals that we share a common ancestor with(evolution) are still among us(monkeys, chimps,orangutans,etc). The evolutionist will counter and say that some evolved and some didn't. Okay, fine, but how can you explain EVERY transitional form going extinct? Especially since the transitional forms WERE THE ANIMALS THAT WERE NATURALLY SELECTED! Alas, my dear friend, the Saber-tooth tiger and the Mammoth were SUPERIOR to modern day tigers and elephants, not inferior, yet they "evolved" into something inferior? What sort of Survival of the Fittest is this? Defense of Question 2 I was saying animals and humans have no spiritual structure. Neanderthal man is not an animal. A sub species is not a different species. Plus, all of these types of men can be questioned as to whether they even existed. For example, Java Man was "discovered" by finding PART of a skull, ONE molar tooth, and a femur bone. And marvel of marvels, the bones were NOT found in the same place; they were dug up MORE THAN A YEAR APART! Another human ancestor that has been discarded, Piltdown man, was reconstructed from a skull and some teeth found in an English gravel pit. Louis Leakey discovered Ramapithecus, a handful of teeth and jaw fragments, and put them together incorrectly to resemble a human jaw. In 1978, more bones were discovered, and Ramapithecus was just an orangutan. Another "missing link" in the supposed evolution of man, Cro-Magnon man, was discovered in southwest France. At the time, Cro-Magnons were supposed to be our most-recent human ancestors on the evolutionary family tree. Evolutionists now admit that the Cro-Magnons were 100% human; they were merely a tribe of people that often dwelled in caves and hunted bison. Defense of Question 3 If evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the OPPOSITE. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles. Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout almost all the world's environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few. New features apparently don't evolve. Defense of Question 4 Where did ANY ENERGY come from for this expansion? Indeed, the Creation of the Universe should have had some energy introduced. Where did it come from if it cannot be created. And this is where evolution will always be boiled down to: How did the Universe start? "I don't know" is what they will ALWAYS say if honest. One evolutionist said it just sort of "poofed" into existence? Well, let me tell you something man, you can't have a "poofee" without a "Poofer." But alas, Christianity becomes more probable because they have an answer evolution CANNOT give. Defense of Question 5 According to Physicist Donald DeYoung: "One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects. In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long' ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year." Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system. Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery — unless it was designed that way from the beginning. Defense of Question 6 They affect EVERY mule that's ever been born, not just individuals. Creationists and even many evolutionists immediately pointed out that all observed mutations whether laboratory induced or occurring naturally have typically been harmful, or in some cases neutral . Mutations are typically a copying error or mistake ,which cause things like disease or monstrosities and put the organism at a disadvantage . In addition, mutations have discovered to be an extremely rare event since genes have built in function to stabilize and rest change. So in other words, mutations are rarely seen and when they do occur ,they do not bring out and advantage to any living thing. Evolution like to use example of beneficial mutations in antibiotic resistance to bacteria , or in mutation of the tomato for example , though none of these types of mutations are relevant to any ideas about one kind of creature changing to another. One kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutations has simply NEVER been shown. I have little room left as well now. However, let me present some evidence in favor of Christianity specifically. 1. The Bble speaks of entropy(Hebrews 1:10-11). 2. Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day. 3. At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth's free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7). 4. The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world. 5. Job 38:19 asks, "Where is the way where light dwells?" Modern man has only recently discovered that light (electromagnetic radiation) has a "way," traveling at 186,000 miles per second. 6. Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6). Apologies, but I am out of room. Sources http://evidencebible.com... http://luckythreeranch.com... http://www.earthage.org...