It may have already been stated, but humans are not evolved from monkeys. You can really tell who wrote the "conversation" in the OP. Obviously not the professor. No professor would agree that humans are evolved from monkeys.
If humans evolved from monkeys, then there would be no monkeys today because they would have evolved into humans. The fact of the matter is, humans and monkeys share common ancestry in such primitive species as the Australopithecus and whatnot.
Also, the discussion of cold vs. heat, and of heat being the absence of cold goes both ways. Heat is simply the absence of cold in the same way that cold is the absence of heat. To only use one side of this relation to argue a point is ridiculous. Life is a state without death, death is a state of being without life. On that subject, the discussion oversimplified "night" and how darkness relates, but I won't go into that.
If anything, this "conversation" makes me frustrated with Christianity even further. From a scientific aspect, God doesn't exist and we have no way of proving it, as discussed. Christianities response? "Well we don't HAVE to have tangible evidence, we just have to believe that it is there". The student's argument that the professor must have no brain is very much invalid. As a member of the human race, the professor shares a 100% genetic similarity with the student (aside from distinguishable traits, features, and personality). Multiple medical procedures actually would SHOW the professors brain, so the reality is that all the students in that class could see the professor's brain given medical procedures would be undergone. No amount of medical procedure would reveal God all of a sudden.
I could explain more, but the bottom line is: this attempt at advocacy for Christianity is clever, but is full of holes and lacks coherent reasoning. Anybody convinced to be a Christian through this dramatized and unrealistic "conversation" (that never happened) is automatically deemed...not very smart in my book.
