Religion is a modern day myth.

Thank you for writing your second argument. The whale you found is called a "Maiacetus inuus." To respond to your opening statement. In order for Darwinism to be true the theory requires a continuous record of animals gradually evolving new traits that make the animal more suitable for its environment. Not only does the website you provided for me and the voters, give only one fossil record, of what some scientists believe to be an ancient whale, but you have failed to give the ENTIRE fossil record of a whale, evolving over millions of years. Why is this important? Because a whale does not loose its feet over one generation, according to evolution it happens over millions of years. The evidence you gave only supports one generation. Thus, it does not meet the requirements of proving Darwinism. You said: "Over hundreds and thousands of years whales began to develop the ability to give birth in the open ocean..." Okay for the sake of argument lets say that's true, but your source only gives one generation of the whales fossil record, when it needs to include a fossil record from each generation (this record does not exist because evolution is only a theory, if it does exist prove it and show me another source). So again, where is the evidence of fossils from the point after (such as the process of the whale losing its feet) or before the whale? You see, there are so many gaps in between the evolutionary fossil record. Since this is true (and you have not proven other wise) it is impossible for evolution to be true as well; evolution can not be a reliable theory when so many pieces of its puzzle are not there an will never be there. This is one out of the many flaws in evolution. Another issue in evolutionary fossil records is the attempt to prove the evolutionary process of insects and bugs. According to Dr. David Berlinski, there is very little or arguably no fossil records of spiders, given to us by evolutionary scientists. You said: "This is true, you cannot see love or ideas, this is because both of these things are contained solely within our heads, so does god." I am trying to figure out whether or not you were debating why God does NOT exist within that sentence. If you were, well then, are you denying that love and your ideas are non-existent since they are only in you head? I don't understand. Please, go into more depth about the non-existents of God in your next response. You said: "First of all and as I have already shown the whale evolved from a land animal and has not yet fully evolved to it's environment." Are you saying that whales have been able to evolve, so that they can breed, communicate, swim ect... in water, but have not yet learned to breath under water, after a time of over hundreds and thousands of years? Plus, why is it that a whale "evolved" the ability to hold its breath under water for long periods of time, instead of just evolving gills? Wouldn't evolving gills make it much easier for a whale to cope with its environment, thus, following the patterns of evolution through natural selection. But it doesn't does it? Instead the whale evolves a less efficient way of coping (holding it's breath for a long period of time), so this fact, then goes against the basis on which the theory of natural selection lies, ultimately disproving it. This is just one out of many examples on how natural selection contradicts itself. You said: "...the process of evolution does not apply to modern man..." What makes you thing that evolution no longer applies to modern man? Because, according to evolution do not all organisms (including humans) evolve in ways that suit better to their environment. In a human's case we still can ketch diseases and become very sick or even die. Now, you say, "We have the intelligence to survive even when a climate does not suit us perfectly." But that is not what natural selection is about, natural selection, forces all organisms (including humans) to continue to evolve until they are matched perfectly to there environment. I seems to me that you do not even understand the basic laws of natural selection because no one in the scientific community supporting evolution would agree with your statement written above. You said: "If god created it then who created god? If god has been around forever then why doesn't the same principle apply to the universe?" For the first question, the point is, is that I believe that God was created by nothing he always was. You see, if one believes in God then one is not confined to believe with in the boundaries of modern science, thus it makes sense for me to believe that God has always been. God is not constricted to science because God created science in the first place. For the second question, the universe has not always been in existence for the obvious reason of, God created it. But, in your case the universe can not have always existed because from what you have said I am assuming you do not believe in any thing super natural or anything unprovable by science, thus, sense science cannot prove a universe that has always existed, I am assuming you would not believe that it has. You said: "I would also like to point out that the burden of evidence lies on my opponent, I am saying that god does not exist, he is the one who needs to prove that he does." I did in fact do my best to prove the existence of God, almost half of my first argument does so. You on the other hand have failed to prove that God does not exist, even though I have specifically asked for you to do so. Why did you not? If the reason is because you cant, then why are you even claiming that religion is a modern day myth. You said: "I can challenge god to a duel right now, a battle of wits or something like it and nothing will happen because there is no god. I bet my life on it, god cannot smite me dead, he does not exist." Almost everything you have said foes not prove that religion is a modern day myth, and the above quote is no exception. Why do you persist to write things that do not give scientific evidence on the non-existence of God. Just because your asking God to kill you and God does not, doesn't make him a non-existent, made up creature. The above quote was totally irrelevant to the topic. You Asked: "I would also like to ask a question of my opponent, how long ago do you consider the earth to have been created?" Honestly I don't know, but I can tell you that sense Adam and Eve, maybe 10,000 years. But sense God started the very forming of the universe; I honestly do not know. If it was 4.6 billion yeas, fine. That doesn't matter it still does not prove that there is no God. To wrap things up, you have not even tried to answer questions 1 and 2 in my first argument. Make sure to do so in your next argument, also go into depth. Plus quite frankly you made a petty attempt at answering the 3rd one. again I will ask questions 1 and 2, hopefully you will be able to answer them in your next response. 1. Prove to everyone that will read this debate that God is not real, give scientific evidence to back it up along with sources? 2. If God is not real than how do we know we are not all in some kind of delusional world where there are no morals or real objects? 3. Again try to prove that fossil records are not corrupted in evolution, show me and the voters how a specific animal has evolved over millions of years? You have to use more then just one generation, there should be thousands. Sources: http://www.youtube.com... Thank you, I look forward to your response. charles15