Resolved: Christianity and the Bible are true and the correct faith.

Assuming lack of conduct goes in favour of my opponent (as it should), I'll continue as if this is a concluding remark and rebuttal in one.HistoricityThe "old censuses" aren't anything to add to historicity. For one, the "old censuses" don't exist. Censuses are only known to exist because of people citing them (like Seutonius) or the titles of people as being Censor (like Censor Aemilius). Second, from 1st century BC onwards, the role of censor and the act of creating census was abolished (due to civil wars, impracticalities of the role of censor, and dictatorships of the Emporers). Thirdly, even if there was a censor, how do we identify the 12 apostles? Of a list of tens of thousands of people, the names John and Luke appearing isn't anything special. The census are irrelevant, and in fact reason to doubt the historicity of the Bible: for if there was no census of Quirinius, yet the Bible claims it happens (which causes the events leading to the birth of Christ, so it is nothing trivial), then we have massive reason to doubt the Bible is accurate at all.Moreover, again, religious minorities being persecuted is nothing new. There has been persecution on a much larger scale of Zoroastrians, of the mystery religions, and of nazis: it doesn't make them valid just because people still believe in them. ScienceIgnoring how you explicitly said this "is plenty of evidence" while saying "There is no evidence" at the first round, let's get to each point. 1 - Earth spins, so it becomes a diskI don't know where to start with this one. For one, the top and bottom of the earth are not slowly drifting towards one another. Every few months the earth tilts and then tilts back. The earth itself rotates on its axis. But the spinning doesn't cause the top and bottom to drift towards each other. This simply isn't grounded in fact. If the rate was mentioned, then it'd be useful and I could work out what this point came from. However, it seems to be based on some strange system in which something spinning means that the top and bottom push into each other, which frankly isn't remotely similar to any system I've ever heard of.2 - Salt rateSalt influx is a more popular argument which I have heard of, and by googling can actually be found(if anyone can find me a link in the comments to the first argument to a more comprehensive explanation, bye the by, It'll be appreciated). This originated from Kent Hovind's 100 proofs, and goes like this:"Given the rate of salt influx to the oceans, they should be much saltier than they are if the earth were billions of years old." Of course, the rebuttal is as simple as the statement: it assumes that salt isn't taken out of the oceans. If it is in a steady state (the amount of salt in is virtually the same as goes out), as we've known since '54, then this holds no problem to an old earth. All salt tells us is the minimum age, based on the original salt content (as we can work out via a geometric series to be roughly thirty thousand years old, not six thousand. Melvin Cook, a noted and respected scientist and creationist agrees this argument is simply wrong). 3 - No Climate Change? My opponent seems to shoot himself in the foot here slightly: he agrees there has been no major change to its climate or shape, but Noah's Flood would precisely cause such an event. A flood on global proportions would remodel the position of the tectonic plates, temperatures, wildlife... everything would be astronomically different. However, the agreement that there is no change in recent history and thus the consistency over the last thousands of years simply hurts creationism, and not those who challenge it.4 - Cosmology Why can't two small things cause something astronomical? However, this still assumes that the beginning was two molecules: I believe it was caused by a condensed singularity erupting all the particles into existence (or the form of existence they currently take, with negligible exceptions like virtual particles). 5 -EvolutionThis simply is a complete misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution has no goal, so it cannot "half-build". If anything was half-built, it would not survive, would die out, and thus wouldn't exist. That's why there's no "half-built" things: evolution does not permit them. There exists animals with unnecessary organs, because evolution streamlines them to no being no longer necessary (and thus need less to survive). Moreover, "half-evolving" is nonsensical. If you half-dig a hole, you've got a hole. Even if evolution was a process with a goal, it still is nonsensical to view it as being able to create half-finished products.Evolution moreover does not make all animals humans. It wouldn't make sense. A fast animal or buffalo did better than humans hundreds of years ago in America against the tribes because they could outrun, outbreed, and beat them. Animals are subjugated because we work faster than evolution - we work within generations to make massive breakthroughs. You cannot evolve a gun, and so lions lost in the fight. Finally, the reason we haven't evolved in thousands of years is based on many misconceptions. Starting from the most obvious: evolution takes place over millions of years when a species is under biological pressure. Humans have never been under pressure to evolve over a large period of time. Mass starvation is needed for evolution on the scale my opponent wants. Furthermore, evolution arguably has happened, if we include microevolutionary minor changes. We have grown in hieght, for example, by a foot since a few thousand years ago. Furthermore, since we act faster than evolution, many argue (myself included) we are post-evolution, and no longer subject to its laws. We have "broken free" of its principles.Cloning stuffWater - There are many ways to make water. Rockets do it to take off, nuclear reactors, oxygen and hydrogen lit on fire, all of these create water. Water is the single easiest substance to create.People - When mummy and daddy love each over very much... or get IVF treatment, or get surrogacy, or get "test tube babies". The major reason we haven't cloned people is because lobbyists (Christian lobbyists specifically) keep saying it is immoral and wrong and we can't do it. We certainly can: we've cloned sheeps with no problem (short of the expected issues like aged cells). People is no issueMinds - This is a philosophical, not a scientific issue, on what is classed as a mind. Many scientists in the field of philosophy of mind though agree that things like cleverbot is an example of a mind which is a machine (the supercomputer one in the US, not necessarily online).Feelings - Chemicals. This one cannot be explained without reference to complex biology which I cannot go into in a thousand characters, but things like seratonin or ocytonin are all ways of creating or manufacturing "feeling".But how did all this happen without a creator? Simple. Water is easily produced through the two most common elements in the universe, People via evolution and abiogenesis, minds and feelings are useful products (though that is a certain understatement).CONclusionI cannot help but smile at the concluding remarks claiming, again, Romans couldn't kill Christianity, therefore it is right. We haven't killed Zoroastrianism or Fascism or Marxism off either, yet it doesn't stop them being wrong - what would stop them is reason. This is the burden that Christianity fails to reach.Voting:S&G - repeated misspelling of "rebuttal" as rebuttle, "coarse not" instead of "course not", etc. makes me urge a vote CONConduct - PRO, for being courteous about my inability to access a computer at 4 in the morning (tongue-in-cheek)Sources - TiedArgument - Of course, I shouldn't comment on who won, but I want to remind that the burden was justifying "a belief in God, a belief in immortality, and a belief in a supernatural book" Not only do I think neither God nor the Bible were justified, but immortality was not even mentioned. Thank you.