Why there is no god

I will do as my opponent did in the previous round and defend my argument. My opponent asks the question "where is the gap?" In fact, there is a tremendous gap, approximately 4 billion years, that creationists in general seem to avoid at all costs. While most creationists will argue that the Earth is some 6,000 years old, I will provide scientific fact for which there is no biblical evidence to dispute the scientific claims. First of all, let me address the elephant in the room. The arguments presented by my opponent are mostly faith based and what little scientific information is presented demonstrates a rudimentary understanding of the sciences. Also, my opponent uses incredible sources for his arguments, namely answersingenesis.org, with information solely supplied by a faith based culture and no that of the scientific community. I have simply stated what science says about the issues. answersingenesis.org makes the claim that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old, and starts counting on the first day of creation, which is solely a faith based argument for the question of the age of the Earth. This is not based on scientific evidence and should be regarded as purely myth. According to research written by G. Brent Dalrymple of the U.S. geological survey, states that the oldest rocks on Earth are 3.6 to 3.8 billion years old, based upon scientifically accurate radiometric (isotopic) dating. According to Dalrymple, "Radiometric dating is based on the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes that occur naturally in rocks and minerals". The following table in this link is used in determining the date of geological findings: http://www.talkorigins.org... The rest of the article I will provide in the sources section speaks for itself. Isotopic dating of rocks is tried, tested, and true. Whereas, on the contrary, biblical evidence is solely based on word-of-mouth, and nothing more. My opponent also makes this statement: " I would argue that god is a perfect designer but has allowed his creation to be subject to man and thus, with the advent of sin, has been marred". First off, why would god, knowing the intentions of mankind, let his creation be subject to "marring" and changing the intended purpose of this creation. My opponent will certainly bring in the argument of free will here, but let me make this statement, rather, question: If god knows everything that is going to happen and created us in the first place is it really free will or the illusion of free will? And again, my opponent uses solely biblical evidence using the word "sin" to quantify his statement. "Sin" is not scientifically quantifiable at all, whereas the information I have provided is quantifiable and can be tested and refined using the scientific method. My opponent also states that natural selection is "Unable to give rise to novel (new) genes, but in fact eliminates from a gene pool". Part of this statement is completely true. Natural selection eliminates unfavorable genes from a gene pool. That is certainly true! However, the notion that natural selection is unable to give rise to novel genes is false. According to research done by Henrik Kaessmann, from the Center for Integrative Genomics at the University of Lausanne, novel genes also regularly arose from messenger RNAs of ancestral genes, protein-coding genes metamorphosed into new RNA genes, genomic parasites were co-opted as new genes, and that both protein and RNA genes were composed from scratch (i.e., from previously nonfunctional sequences). Essentially, prokaryotic bacteria, with the help of RNA, developed new genes that led to the formation of eukaryotic bacteria. My opponent also makes the claim that "this selection process is dependent upon pre-existing genetic information and is entirely impotent in regards to formulating new, specified genetic code." This claim is dismissed in the above argument. In conclusion, in the absence of pure scientific information, my opponent has made an attempt at a faith vs. fact argument. I am not an individual of faith, because faith is not quantifiable by any means, and never will be. Faith is, for lack of a better term, substance, which cannot be quantified or tested using the scientific method, therefore, cannot be a trusted source for scientific information. Back to you... Sources http://www.talkorigins.org... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...