Christianity is false

I'd like to start out by requesting that as we have now both had 2 argument rounds, Con will only use the last round to summarize existing information. I think this request is reasonable because if Con were to make new points, I would not be able to respond. That wouldn't really be a debate, would it? This is my first debate here, and lo and behold, I forgot to put that in the first round. I hope Con will be reasonable here.Now, to what Con said at the end of the last round. Con said: "You have yet... to make, and justify your stance." To make this clear to the readers, as stated in the first round, my stance "consists of the lack of evidence, let alone proof of god or biblical creation." What I think Con is referring to is that I have thus far only responded to their points. If you look back at my stance, it becomes obvious that in order to maintain (or justify, as Con says) the "lack of evidence, let alone proof of god or biblical creation," I must debunk any claims at evidence by the opposition. This is exactly what I have done thus far, and as such, I urge readers to disregard Con's false statement.Concerning the Cosmological ArgumentCon claims: "My cosmological argument still stands." Con then restates what was said in round one, that "from nothing, nothing comes" and then insists on filling the gap with god. Like I said in round one, a lack of an explanation from science is not a valid argument for Christianity. Put another way, just because science hasn't fully explained the beginning of the universedoes not mean things must be blindly believed without proof. If this was the case, I could argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the all powerful ruler and creator of the universe with exactly as much evidence (none) as Con.Con also talks about empirical data. Con claims that things in the universe could exist without being able to be proven by the Scientific Method. This may well be true. However, I could say, based on Con's logic, that I am a unicorn with tentacles for legs. For Con to continue to use the argument that things (including Christianity) can be believed without evidence, as he suggests in round 2, it must be believed that I am a unicorn with tentacles for legs. It may be said that this is ridiculous and unprovable, but isn't that exactly what is being said about god?I'll sum up. No, science hasn't explained everything about the beginning of the universe. But is that reason to believe in an unproven all powerful magic man in the sky who hates homosexuals and shellfish? Con thinks it is. Is this a valid argument in a debate? No. Don't support Con's blind assumption of Christianity's supposed truth.Concerning the Moral Argument If Con had read my first rebuttal to the Moral Argument more thourougly, they would have seen that I said "adaptations can exist because of the survival of the mutation, and not because of the resulting benefit of the mutation." In round 2, Con seemed to think that I stated that mutations are never beneficial. Con's refutal of my statement was backed by a source (something for which I commend Con -- it's a first). However, I can present an equally viable source (1), which confirms my correctness by stating, "Any given mutation is merely a chance error in the genetic system, and as such, its likelihood of occurrence is not influenced by whether it will turn out to be detrimental, beneficial, or (most commonly) neutral." What it boils down to is: who is right? Which source is better? Both directly quote Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution; how can we tell which is telling the truth? I'll simplify this for the readers. If you assume both sources are equally viable concerning evolution (which I do as they both cite Darwin), focus on what was said by each of us: Con said: "Adaptions survive only because the adaptation was beneficial, and it made one organism perform better in its environment than the others."I said: "...adaptations can exist because of the survival of the mutation, and not because of the resulting benefit of the mutation." Now look at what was said in Con's source: "In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection."I'll put my source here for comparison: "Any given mutation is merely a chance error in the genetic system, and as such, its likelihood of occurrence is not influenced by whether it will turn out to be detrimental, beneficial, or (most commonly) neutral."What Con doesn't realize is that both me, my source and, their source contradicts them. We all say more or less that mutations can -- can exist randomly and not in a beneficial way. Look back, read the quotations, and see for yourself Con's fallacy which they refuse to recognize.Now that we can see that species can evolve without the mutation being beneficial, I suggest rereading my bullet lists which failed to format (I hope debate.org fixes this) in round 2. They quickly and clearly explain that evolutionary morality is possible and viable given Con's logic.Con also chose to ignore the fact that they are claiming that morality originated from an all powerful, unproven being whereas I am conforming to evolution, a definitively proven fact of life. If Con responds to this with the "empirical data" argument, check up in my "Concerning the Cosmological Argument" section to remind you of my refutal of it. ConclusionAll of my opponent's arguments balance precariously on the idea of god, as decreed by Con's favorite book, the Bible. Con consistently relies on the assumption that just because science hasn't already figured out everything about the universe, god exists. Con insists on pointing out everything that hasn't yet been studied, and filling the gap with god. As stated in the first round, blind faith is not enough to argue that the claims of Christianity are true. Will you, the reader, support Con by pretending that their blind, unproven claims have a place in an educated debate? Or will you decide to back the debater that used definitive evidence to construct clear refutals of Chritianity?Sources:(1) http://link.springer.com...;(click the "download PDF" button to see the article)