Atheism is more probable than Christianity

Thank you for your swift reply. It is a great pleasure to debate you. I am going to respond to your opening arguments first. Subsequently, I will defend my opening arguments. Rebuttals to con’s opening arguments My opponent’s entire case for the existence of God is based upon what he conceives as “flaws” in the Theory of Evolution. I will refute his arguments against evolution; and then I will also bring forth strong evidence in its favour. I. Problems with Evolution A. Why con is wrong: Atheism does not depend upon evolution. My opponent makes a false dichotomy between evolution and Biblical Creation. Even if I concede that evolution and the Big Bang Theory are false, it still does not prove God’s existence. Indeed, there could be hundreds of possible unexplored theories for the development of life. Secondly, my opponent makes a huge misconception about evolution. Evolution does not explain the origin of life; rather it explains the diversity and development of life overtime (Caldwell, et al. 2008). B. Con’s question one I fail to see how this is a problem with evolutionary theory. Humans and monkeys are different species. However, extinction events are rather common so once more, I fail to see the connection between extinction=evolution is false. Charles Darwin, in The Origin of the Species notes (Darwin 1859): “The theory of natural selection is grounded on the belief that each new variety, and ultimately each new species, is produced and maintained by having some advantage over those with which it comes into competition; and the consequent extinction of less-favoured forms almost inevitably follows.” The reason for this is that in nature, each species produces more individuals that can survive in its environment. Consequently, they must compete with each other to survive and reproduce. (Fairbanks 2012) In conclusion, extinctions are important to evolution. Species come and they go. Now, it is bizarre why God would create species and then have them go extinct. 3. Con’s question two There is strong evidence that the Neanderthals and other hominids had religious practices. Now, it is important to note that Neanderthals are not H. sapiens; rather, they are a sub-species of the homo genus. The main evidence for this comes from Human-Neanderthal DNA. 4. Con’s question number three My opponent makes an argument from irreducible complexity: Sex is too great to have evolved independently. However, the variety of life cycles is great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual because there are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involved single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and females acting together. 5. Con’s question four My opponent confuses evolution with the Big Bang Theory—they are two completely different theories which explain different things. Secondly, the Big Bang is not an explosion. Indeed, it is an expansion. The best way to word the Big Bang Theory is thus: “In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler." (Feuerbacher and Scranton 2006) In fact, the BBT does not explain the origin of the universe; rather, it explains the development of the universe over time (ibid). So, how did the universe come into existence? Honestly, I don’t know. There are some good hypothesies that I would like to present. “In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion.” (Davies 1983) In conclusion, it is possible for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe. To say that “I don’t know how the universe came into existence; therefore God did it” commits the fallacy of ignorance. Instead, let’s look for an explanation and if God is the best (or only) explanation, then let’s follow the evidence. 6. Con’s question 5 My opponent cites the moon as evidence for a young earth. I can’t do any better than to quote Mark Issaak on this point (Isaak, Claim CE110 2004): The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old. The magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents. In the past, the continents were arranged such that tidal friction, and thus the rates of earth's slowing and the moon's recession, would have been less. The earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of two seconds every 100,000 years (Eicher 1976). The rate of earth's rotation in the distant past can be measured. Corals produce skeletons with both daily layers and yearly patterns, so we can count the number of days per year when the coral grew. Measurements of fossil corals from 180 to 400 million years ago show year lengths from 381 to 410 days, with older corals showing more days per year (Eicher 1976; Scrutton 1970; Wells 1963; 1970). Similarly, days per year can also be computed from growth patterns in mollusks (Pannella 1976; Scrutton 1978) and stromatolites (Mohr 1975; Pannella et al. 1968) and from sediment deposition patterns (Williams 1997). All such measurements are consistent with a gradual rate of earth's slowing for the last 650 million years. The clocks based on the slowing of earth's rotation described above provide an independent method of dating geological layers over most of the fossil record. The data is inconsistent with a young earth. 7. Con’s question 6 The reason why is very simple. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against. (Isaak, Claim CB350 2007) Species are, by definition, groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups. (Mayr 1942)Apologies, but I am out of room. _______________________________________ Bibliography Caldwell, Roy, Jennifer Collins, Josh Frankel, Alan D. Gishlick, Scott Hays, and Crissy Huffard. Misconception: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”. August 22, 2008. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (accessed August 13, 2012). Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species - Chapter 10: On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings. D. Appleton: New York, 1859. Davies, Paul. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1983. Fairbanks, Daniel J. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Amherst: Prometheus, 2012. Feuerbacher, Björn, and Ryan Scranton. Evidence for the Big Bang. January 25, 2006. http://www.talkorigins.org... (accessed 13 August, 2012). Hawking, Steven. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam, 1988. Isaak, Mark. Claim CB350. June 8, 2007. http://www.talkorigins.org... (accessed August 13, 2012). —. Claim CE110. September 9, 2004. http://www.talkorigins.org... (accessed August 13, 2012). —. Claim CE110: Because of tidal friction, the moon is receding, and the earth's rotation is slowing down, at rates too fast for the earth to be billions of years old. September 9, 2004. http://www.talkorigins.org... (accessed August 13, 2012). Kondrashov, Alexey. "Evolutionary genetics of life cycles." Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1997: 391-435. Mayr, E. Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press, 1942.