Is God real

Said exposition, however, was horribly unarticulated, and it was very hard to discern how what my opponent has written would be a proof in support of the existence of God. I do believe, though, that what my opponent wanted to say is that the theory of evolution is highly improbable. Since his exposition was only one sentence and I have a lot of writing space - well, why don't I just go and explain and prove evolution. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTIONTo even begin learning about, and understanding, evolution, one must begin from the moment the first nuclei in the universe were created, later forming atoms. The first atoms formed were those of hydrogen, the simplest element of the periodic table. Later, nuclear fusion in the furnaces of stars would go on to form more complex elements, such as nitrogen and oxygen. As the universe progressed through its early years, so did more of these elements form, and through the explosions and accretion [1] through which our planet was formed, came onto the surface of that very planet. Due to the conditions of the early Earth, which were extreme heat, frequent electrical discharges etc. , chemical synthesis of the first compounds was made possible. One such compound is water, which is a molecule made up of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom. The problem in understanding evolution is what happens next - the creation of organic compounds from inorganic ones. Religious people like to claim this is impossible. However, the Miller-Urey experiment, conducted in 1952. [2], proved the contrary. Miller and Urey simulated the conditions of the early Earth, adding elements such as hydrogen etc. , and the result of the experiment was astonishing - amino acids (organic compounds), sythesized from inorganic elements and compounds. This definitely proved that organic matter can originate from inorganic matter. Since the early Earth was booming with the conditions named, a large number of amino acids formed - that was more than sufficient to form the first peptides, which would then go on to further sythesize into polypeptide chains. The moment when polypeptdie chains exist, the evolution of life can begin. Polypeptide chains are the main prerequisite for the formation of the first cells, and we can almost definitely state that their creation led to the creation of the first cell. Afterwards, cells would become single-cell organisms, and some cells formed colonies - creating the first multi-cell organisms. To survive in the harsh conditions, these organisms' genetic structure, and by extension, their cell structure, changed to suit the conditions, and they evolved. This is the first trace of evolution on Earth. What followed is the growth in size of such organisms, to accomodate more adaptations to the constantlynig condistions, as well as development of sentience and instincts. That is a long and interesting story, but unfortunately, there's not much space for me here, so I'll leave it as it is. After some time, evolution created the common ancestor of humans and apes - the australopithecus [3]. It is an extinct genus of hominids, and its most prominent early subgroups were australopithecus amanensis, australopithecus afarensis, and australopithecus africanus. Through examination of the australopithecus fossils, scientists were able to conclude with certainty that the australopithecus very well matches the defined stage of evolution of hominids at that given time (about 3.5 million years ago). Another proof is one well known - humans share 96% of their DNA with the common chimp. [4]Following that, there came the Neanderthal hominids, and the Cro-magnon ones, finally resulting in the species we now know as homo sapiens. That is the historical flow of evolution. If one wishes to look for modern proof of evolution, there is enough of that as well:1. ATAVISMS [5] - Atavisms are evolutionary throwbacks. They are defined as the appearance of an evolutionary trait which is considered obsolete - such as tails on humans, which we sometimes see appear. Such appearances re even documented on human embryos. The human appendix is also an atavism2. DEFUNCT GENES - Some genes found in certain species (humans as well) have no use in today's life. However, such, or similar genes, were adaptations made by certain organisms long ago - and yet they appear today. That is definite proof of evolution. Finally, I'll only comment on my opponent's horrible wording - "no way a little organism could develop into a huge adult". Children. Your arguments is invalid. This demonstrates why proper wording is key. Now, after proving evolution, I'll add my own argument as to the nonexistence of God. LACK OF EVIDENCE AND INCONSISTENCYFor any claim to be considered true, it needs to be testable and falsifiable. Religion is the opposite - it is dogmatic. Indeed, it is against religion to question dogmas, for to do so would be to question the belief itself. Yet, religion wishes that its theory of a creator be accepted as a universal explanation of the existence of the universe and life. Unfortunately, as Cristopher Hitchens once remarked: "What is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". [6]The only so-called evidence for the existence of God is the Bible, Qu'ran or any other holy book. There are two key problems here: these books offer information that we definitely know is wrong, for example the young Earth theory, which was proven to be wrong by radiometric carbon dating. The other problem is obvious - there are many holy books. In this insignificant spot of the universe, there are loads of groups which claim that it is their deity who controls the universe. Are they all correct? Or all wrong? I'd say the latter. Furthermore, let's take one religion, Christianity for example. Some parts of the Bible are interpreted metaphorically, while in some situations, the Bible is quoted with immense precision. How on Earth do creationists know when and how to interpret the Bible? Can we really accept as evidence a theory whose only proof is a 2000 year old book, the wording of which cannot be agreed upon by its supporters themselves? Definitely not. Finally - the biggest problem religion has - scientists. Those pesky scientists that just can't keep their noses out of everything and keep proving stuff, right? Well, religion seems to he decided that whatever scientists prove, it'll just be claimed to be God's creation. However, it seems God himself had no idea he invented thing x before scientists actually discovered it. This shows the failure of the "God of the gaps" argument at its worst. Generally, a doctrine which either tries to pacify its opponents, or incorporate their findings, is extremely inconsistent both inside and outside and not to be accepted. If you combine that with an extreme lack of proof for any of its claims, we get a fine reason to reject God. No proof, no evidence. And the God of the gaps is getting smaller. The burden of proof is on religion to prove the existence of a creator (see Russell's teapot [7]). Until that happens, the idea of a creator is to be logically rejected and considered a figment of imagination. Back to my opponent. SOURCES:[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] . http://en.wikiquote.org...[7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...