Biblical Creationism is more probable than atheistic naturalism

[Support for God]My opponent begins by stating that, “No thought that is true or false can come solely from a physical source.” Which is demonstrably false, as the entirety of neuroscience studies the physical functioning of neurons and glial cells in specific brain sectors from which thoughts originate and process. My opponent also relies on zero evidence for the claim he has stated. There is no evidence of the existence of a soul or a mind, but only the physical brain and its functioning. Our neurons, glial cells, neurotransmitters, and synapses are almost identical to other animal species, and evolutionary biology has explanatory power when dealing with the evolution of the brain from simple to complex.He then makes a giant leap of logic to say that, based on his faulty premises such as the previous and “rationality must arise out of another rationality,” God exists as the source of rationality. There is no reason why we should accept this, or reject the available science on the evolution of the brain.He then states that we should question the existence of God, which I agree to, as the lack of evidence of a God logically necessitates the entrance of doubt and skepticism.He then jumps around on a variety of scientific subjects using their proof or unproven phenomenon and events as leading to the idea of a God. This is patently absurd for several reasons. The basic assumptions that science is conducted under reject the use of supernatural intervention i.e. seeking natural causes, using natural evidence to understand those causes, and assuming consistency in those causes (God can’t suspend the laws of nature). He goes into biochemistry to note the small odds of life arising out of nothing. This is called abiogenesis. While the odds are small, the different recorded states of atmospheric conditions throughout geological history demonstrate the effect that certain organic compounds had prior to the origin of life. Also, low chance =/= no chance. Furthermore, the reality of low probability in this instance does not therefore necessitate a creator deity. That is an irrelevant conclusion. My opponent then thinks that the study of the universe and its formation is evolution. This denotes a profound lack of knowledge with the subject matter. Cosmologists have several hypotheses about how the moon formed and how the Universe came into being, the ones with the most evidence and argument are the giant impact hypothesis and the Big Bang. But, even if that were later proven wrong, science would adjust, as it is a falsifiable endeavor. Religious dogma and the proof for God are unfalsifiable endeavors, which should arouse suspicion in even the slowest of minds. He then states that the large amount of information in the cell demonstrates design. This goes against all of the available natural reasoning that explains how life becomes more complex and specialized over time. My opponent then makes up his own facts. We’ll call this ‘lyin’ for Jesus’. “...Scientists agree that only a creator and Law giver can be the only plausible explanation for complexity, design, and moral standard.” The percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent. Evolution works without the assumption of God, therefore rendering a such a deity irrelevant in this respect. He then states that the “majority of people think God exists;” this is a blatant ad populum appeal.[SUPPORT OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT]My opponent mentions the biblical flood, then quotes a chemist from the 1800’s (perhaps the last century for a Yale professor to confess such a position without evidence). I’d like him to take a modern scientific consensus on evolution, the flood, and creationism and display that.He then quotes the Bible as support for Biblical Creationism. One can see the circular logic in that. Bible says it’s true, it’s true. He then states that if a creature is denied air, it dies. Not only is that false for life, it’s false for the kingdom animalia: a species named Loricifera lives without oxygen, as it lacks mitochondria (the existence of such mitochondria which replicate independent of cell division, show that it developed in symbiosis with animal cells long ago after being engulfed via phagocytosis). This shows the animal is from an ancient strain of animal cells pre-mitochondria.He then states that creationism has “never failed under the screwtinity of real science.” Creationism and intelligent design were deemed “not real science” when the controversy with evolution and I.D. reached a high point. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, irreducible complexity has long been disproven, intelligent design is not based on the scientific method, and there is no evidence either logical inferences or empirical data that can constitute proof for creationism or intelligent design.[PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISTIC NATURALISM]My opponent states that atheist naturalists tend to dismiss certain possibilities just for principle. However, naturalist atheists are always open to the possibility of some supernatural phenomenon, as long as there is evidence and argument for it. Our brain forms models of the world, simple assumptions that help us live life. There is nothing to make certain these assumptions are 100% correct, but all of us assume the ground will be there when we walk or that the sun will make food for plants, etc. Holding all conceivable possibilities in one’s brain at all times is not possible, leads to cognitive dissonance, and corrupts the model forming process. James Randi founded a $1,000,000 prize specifically to seek out any instance of supernatural, occult, or psychic powers to see if any exist on this planet. No one or event has passed the secondary stage of testing.My opponent then makes the claim that no one else makes, “I will be arguing that nature is only comprehensible scientifically if it is designed by supernatural forces.” There is not and probably never will be a mechanism or explanation for the interaction between supernatural mysteria and natural causality. Natural causality works independently of any unfalsifiable hypotheses about supernatural powers.My opponent then states, “The origin of all things in the universe are a chain of cause and effect that would never end and so of would not begin or stop at the Big Bang.” With this he is claiming to know something that no scientist knows. Science is not dogmatic. It builds hypothesis and theories to help explain, and if they’re wrong they are changed. He then states, “There is no way to use natural science to substantially prove (or disprove) an infinite universe.” There is the multiverse hypothesis that has some explanatory power and logical defensibility on this problem. He then claims that evolution doesn’t work because scientists mess around with bacteria that end up with diminished functions. Artificial selection =/= natural selection. Why would human tampering with bacteria by exposing them to assorted chemical improve their functioning? Natural selection ensures that the fittest for their environment survive, naturally improving functioning over time.[Conclusion]My opponent offers no substantial proof for his claims, uses fallacies, makes faulty assumptions, lies, and does a poor job with rhetoric and argument. Apparently to him, God is an ever receding portion of scientific ignorance. That’s a sad picture of faith from someone who is ostensibly a genuine Christian. Naturalism is more probable, because it is independently verifiable, observable, is falsifiable, our understanding of it leads to advances in civilization, and it is generally non-controversial. The experts in all fields of science reject biblical creationism and accept cosmology, evolutionary biology, geology, and scientific fields that explain the natural world: the only world we know exists.