If there is a God, then it is most definately the Christian God.

As Christianity recognizes only their God to exist, logically, you are required to prove that God exists. You took it a step further, and I backed up a step. No conflict there. Intelligent Design is quite evident. This claim lacks any substance. It is nothing more than a subjective assertion. That design is far from self-evident is demonstrated by the difficulty people have in trying to describe the objective evidence for it. The odds of life occurring by accident is almost impossible to imagine. This is a quintessential argument from incredulity. Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else. A functioning cell is impossible to even artificially produce, never mind accidentally produce. I agree, but man has not had millions of years to try. Life has. Life was not an accident – it was a logical result of its time, environment and many other factors. Complexity arises from natural causes: for example, in weather patterns and cave formations. Man is special. Only in a worldview that denies the vastness and diversity in our Universe. Even a "Biblical creationist" might find himself unable to believe that we are the only intelligent beings "God created" in a cosmos of countless blazing stars and (who knows how many) planetary bodies? So much cosmic "real estate" going to waste. Doesn't sound very "purposeful" does it? But we are smart, I'll give you that. The study of evolution shows that reason is an extremely recent development, and was not needed before that. Still, reason is what makes sense to us as thinking primates, it is what defines falsifiability, it explains why we can agree on things, why some things work and others do not, and why some things are (we can agree) ridiculous. Never mind what they are, it is always reason that we use to make the determination. The fabrication of an all-knowing being does not make any reasonable sense, nor does it set up a usable framework that would be an alternative to reason. No animal can think to the degree that man can. Otherwise, there'd be complicated animal structures. Beehives? Termite mounds? Can you build a nest? Can you build a true beaver dam? Complicated is a loaded and subjective word. All other species of animals are hunter-gatherers. I assume my opponent is citing agriculture – Leaf cutting ants use agriculture, and they build complex nests. Mankind has diversified into a society that is complex. So have ants, termites, bees, whales, chimpanzees, dogs, cats, and on and on. Again complexity is ill-defined and subjective. No other species has developed anything close to the International Space Station. Innovation is unheard of in any other species of life. Innovation? http://blogs.psychologytoday.com... Innovation is not a human-only trait. Hasn't my opponent heard of apes that use sticks to tease out termites from mounds? Mars - Life on Mars Likely, Scientist Claims http://www.space.com... My opponent's link is outdated, and tainted with creationist propaganda. Geology and Archeology - I don't argue Jericho didn't exist – I argue the Biblical account of it – which my opponent has yet to refute. Red Sea - I hope they can – seeing that they have yet to relocate the "wheel". One person does not proof make. Flood - The existence of the entire column at one spot is irrelevant. All of the parts of the geological column exist in many places, and there is more than enough overlap that the full column can be reconstructed from those parts. (the basis of my opponents argument.) http://home.entouch.net... - Very good resource on why The Flood is impossible. Anyone who theorizes that a 'soul' is responsible for motivation or behaviour must account for the following facts: Drugs can alter states of mind, in both short and long term. Biochemical imbalances can cause abnormal emotions and feelings. No emotion ever studied by scientists has been to be without biochemical causes. No emotion has been found that we 'feel' before the relevant chemicals are secreted and the relevant brain circuits activated. Brain damage can alter consciousness. Altering or exciting mammalian brains causes emotional outbursts. Israelites were able to know which animals carried disease and which didn't. Some people say that the rules were given for health reasons, but there is no biblical evidence for that, and scientific studies have not proven it. Is it justice to damn an altruistic and loving Jew, and lift up a murderous Christian who found Jesus in prison? I ask the voters to consider the worth of the facts presented, and the merits of each arguement -