There is no evidence for god, god does not exist. (And by extension, religion is a lie.)
God does not exist as there is no concrete evidence for his existence. And by extension, religion is a lie. My argument is quite simple.
Let me quickly promulgate a few things:
A reasonable prediction of the creation model would be that evidence exists within organisms which testify to their being originally created by an intelligent agent as opposed to unguided natural processes. If it can be shown that the blueprint for all organic life, namely genomes, must have been created by an intelligent agent, any naturalistic model would be inplausable.
It must be understood that we are dealing with historical science which by nature requires us to compare evidence to hypothetical models about the past when we weren't there. Since we cannot observe, test, or repeat past events, the normal operational scientific method cannot ultimately be used to justify any one position, rather, in a forensic science manner, we can only look at current, observable evidence and determine logically which model, if any, it best supports. While we can never ultimately prove any historical event in a purely mathematical sense, we can certainly invalidate a particular model. With the following evidence I shall support the creation model while simultaneously invalidating any naturalistic hypothesis of abiogenesis.
Argument from Genetic Information
The cells of all organic life forms contain information in the form of genetic code. The chain of genetic code known as DNA harbors the amino acids which themselves contain no semantic meaning, but when placed in a linguistic sequence, can be readily utilized in forming every phenotype known to biology.
The living cell demonstrates a system of communication, particularly between DNA and proteins. DNA codes for proteins which go on to form every part of a creature, including the very DNA from which it was coded. DNA is a macro-molecule in the shape of a double-helix with a sugar-phosphate backbone.
DNA serves as the blueprint for every creature's phenotype. Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information.
"To fully characterise the concept of information, five aspects must be considered: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information. . . an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. We term any entity meeting the requirements of this definition as 'universal information' (UI). "
In the function of the genome within living cells we find statistics in the form of four letters which are syntactically organized to give the semantic meaning for transcription and translation. The semantic meaning encoded in the genome is pragmatically utilized in the formation of proteins and thus integral to the process of replication which is a part of the apobetic, or intended goal of the digital code.
In the creation.com reference I provided, one will notice Dr. Werner Gitt's four scientific laws of information (SLI). I will assume for the moment that Con agrees with the first two laws, if not he can explain why. The contention certainly arises with the 3rd and 4th laws.
In order to refute SLI-3, one would need to demonstrate even one example of statistical processes producing UI which meets the criteria of the five levels of information. The primary reason such an example is infeasible is that statistical processes can never produce information containing semantic meaning, let alone pragmatic, purposeful code.
SLI-4 is substantiated by Gitt's SLI-4a-d:
Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it, therefore the information seen in living cells testifies to having been originally created by an intelligent Creator. Note that this argument is not based upon the inability for naturalistic/statistical processes alone to account for the formation of genetic information, but rather my case is built upon what we do know about genetic code and function. Therefore this is not a god-of-the-gaps argument, as the claim is based on observation. Not also that this is not an argument from complexity but from specified universal information. To refute my case is actually quite a simple task; one must only need demonstrate a single case where universal information, of the type seen in genetic code, is derived entirely from purely material sources.
Thank you for accepting this debate, Con.
I have to say I enjoyed Con's rather large copy-pasta explanation of DNA. 
It all seems well and good, but that ends at:
"Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it".
That is simply incorrect and a fallacy. As learned from “On the Origin of Species”, order happens. Without an intelligence controlling it, but though the fundamental logic known as natural selection.
I notice Con listed the entirety of creation.com as a source without specifying an article. I was eventually able to find the page I assume Con was sourcing from, and found a lack of evidence supporting Dr. Werner Gitt's SLI-4. Thereby, through what I can find, SLI-4 is only a thesis at best. Refuted.
Your go, Con...
Pro says, "I have to say I enjoyed Con's rather large copy-pasta explanation of DNA."
Indeed my argument was copy and pasted from my own previous debate, but this in no way negates its validity and is certainly not a case of plagiarism.
Pro says, "That is simply incorrect and a fallacy. As learned from 'On the Origin of Species', order happens. Without an intelligence controlling it, but though the fundamental logic known as natural selection."
Merely asserting that Darwin's antiquated book demonstrates biological order via natural selection does not negate my argument. In order to refute my case, Pro must demonstrate an example of the creation of universal information, as seen in the genome of living organisms, from naturalistic processes. Pro says "order happens" through natural selection. While this is not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of natural selection, order itself is vague, potentially arbitrary in its quantification, and unhelpful regarding my argument. Order can be seen in the structure of atoms, rocks, etc., but true universal information which is seen in the genome is beyond mere order: genomes contain specified digital code which, by all observations to date, not to mention by all logical estimation, only comes from an intelligent mind.
Pro says, " I was eventually able to find the page I assume Con was sourcing from, and found a lack of evidence supporting Dr. Werner Gitt's SLI-4. Thereby, through what I can find, SLI-4 is only a thesis at best."
I am sorry about that, I will provide the correct article source below. For Pro to claim a lack of evidence supporting Gitt's SLI-4 without explaining his reasoning is unhelpful. Pro claims that SLI-4 is only a thesis, as though this refutes its validity. Evolution by means of genetic mutations guided by natural selection is also only a thesis, or hypothesis, which by Pro's logic would negate its validity as well. Pro has not addressed my case whatsoever, and certainly has not refuted my claims.
I have explained why genetic information meets the criteria of universal information: "In the function of the genome within living cells we find statistics in the form of four letters which are syntactically organized to give the semantic meaning for transcription and translation. The semantic meaning encoded in the genome is pragmatically utilized in the formation of proteins and thus integral to the process of replication which is a part of the apobetic, or intended goal of the digital code." Pro has not refuted this.
The SLIs are very easy to refute; all one must do is demonstrate a single observed example where universal information is created by natural, statistical processes. Pro has not done this. Therefore my case stands.
On to Pro...
Let me clarify something on con's point about my understanding of natural selection:
Gross simplification does not equal "fundamental misunderstanding".
On to the main issue at hand here, the SLIs.
Please note the "... at best." part of my argument. If we imagine a hierarchy of fact, that goes from claim to law of nature. "Thesis" would be very close to claim. "... a thesis at best." would mean it is nothing more than "a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved.". These claims he has put forth have, as I see you have misunderstood, "a lack of evidence". He has put fourth these claims without specifying how they came about, only asking for them to be proven wrong. They are augments from ignorance. Which as I have already tried to explain, is a logical fallacy. It being a thesis at best does not refute its validity, but it being unsupported by proof does. The big bang theory is not invalid as it is supported by proof. In addition, the main proof against it, such as proof of how information can be created by means of natural selection and mutation (among others) are thrown out the window by Gitt saying it is impossible - it is against the laws of nature! Meaning the correctness of the SLIs is dependent upon the correctness of the SLIs. Circular reasoning. Which, again, is a logical fallacy. Because of it not being disprovable through its fallacious nature, it is against the very fundamentals of a science. It is not falsifiable because we live in a universe of information-based systems, and his claim is that all universal information is created by an intelligent "sender" aka. god.
So the burden of proof remains on Con.
Another one of the errors in his argument is that all information with which a computer scientist has professional experience, has been created by humans. So he extrapolates from one sort of information (created by humans) to another sort (biological information, not created by humans). Needless to say, this is not a very sound way to reason.
Thank you for the debate. It has been a good one.
On to Con's finishing words...
Pro claims lack of evidence, yet I have demonstrated how the function and processes of the genome exemplify universal information. My opponent has not refuted my claims with any supported arguments or evidence. My case stands uncontested.
Pro's claim of informatic extrapolation is erroneous as the definition domain for universal information is not contingent upon the location of the system in question but upon the function and processes observed within the system. Genetic information meets the criteria for UI.
Thanks for your time.