Existence of god

1. Addressing information in DNA, it has to be carried by it, of course. But the information cannot be entirely synonymous with what we physically observe. We must address why the DNA and its structure is capable of creating new organisms. Why does the DNA have the capability of giving us curly hair, for example. This is what we mean by 'information'. Of course we can't see it; but the DNA carries 'meaning', so to speak, that is able to produce distinguishable traits (skin tone, eye color, height etc. - but the structure [I.e, the physical structure - what we observe] itself does not explain why it has such an ability). And so, when we observe 'meaning', or 'information' assigned to something, we generally assume intelligence. This DNA has amazing capabilities, and sure we can explain how it works and how it is even able to produce how we look, but its physical form does not explain why it carries that capability, meaning/information, in the first place. The best we can do if want to explain DNA's origin naturally is offer an hypothesis explaining how it was physically formed, but this still does not explain why the DNA should be able to carry meaning, translate it, transport, etc. So sure, we can talk about the pattern of the bases, but why does such a pattern contain meaning (information)? Now, I understand that for the evolutionary process to produce new organisms, random mutations must create new novel proteins. But molecular biologists have argued (since the 20th century [the 1960s]) that producing new functional genes (brand new genetic information) through random mutations is very, very improbable. And this is very related to what I was referring to in the Cambrian explosion. The geologic fossil record contains the origin of major innovations in organisms' forms and functions, but definitely appear to be discontinuous at face value; like the Cambrian explosion, creatures suddenly appear, with no previous creatures before them having little, or no similarity to them whatsoever. This is definitely not what Darwin expected (he seemed to think the problem would possibly be solve in the future, with more fossil findings, as he lived in the 19th century, but with more discoveries it has only made it more difficult on Darwinians). So could the neo-Darwinian explanation of random mutation and natural selection offer an adequate explanation for the quick appearances of animals in the fossil record? I'll get to this. But as for storing information physically, I do agree with you. (I'm sure you know it is stored digitally in the form of a four-character digital code.) These precisely sequenced nucleotide bases contain, store, and transmit the building instructions, that build the important protein molecules that cells need. And to build new animals, from prior amimals, we're going to need the generation of *new information*. For brand new life-forms to come into being, we of course require new cell types, and organs, and so forth. But this also requires special proteins; And building the proteins will requires new information on DNA. So the Cambrian explosion is both an appearance of new forms of life, and an explosion of biological information. So again, how did this biological information come about? You seemed to state that when DNA came about, the information was there (as though its form itself can produce information). But DNA does contain the instructions for building new life. DNA has a 'genetic program' that specifies the features of an organism. They are written in the linear sequences of the bases. And Darwinians today believe that DNA sequences mutate into new sequences. This does assume that DNA contains a program for embryo development: dna makes rna and rna makes proteins and then that makes us. But we do need to understand that DNA do not completely specify RNAs, of course much less proteins. And the arrangement of proteins in a cell requires information that precedes their development and is specified independently of DNA. I do not believe DNA can contain a program for embryo development and random mutations in DNA cannot provide the materials for life-forms' body/form evolution. Mutations act on information, but do not produce information as you stated. Rearranging genes will not give rise to hair, arms, fingers, etc. 'Tweaking' the genome through duplication and mutation is not going to give rise to a brand new genome with new information. Mutations can produce beneficial outcomes, but this isn't going to add new information. Mutations/duplications have never been observed to add new information, only act on preexisting information. Beneficial mutations observed by us humans have been reshuffling and sometimes deletions of information, but does not create it. And then you began by describing speculative explanations for, as you addressed, 'physical features, by physical processes'. But again, I believe it is faulty to equate the building instructions that make organisms with the physical structure itself. The Darwinian, at best can describe the origin of physical structures of DNA (which you did in the prior round), but it does not help explain the origin of the instructions, and why DNA has the 'power' to give seals whiskers, e.g.. You also didn't seem to address how we could solve the vicious circle of DNA, RNA, and proteins. As you need DNA to make RNA, and also need RNA to make proteins, and you need proteins to make DNA. Then you asserted that the Cambrian explosion was not really an explosion at all (concerning new life-forms). But I heavily disagree! Life forms often suddenly disappear and are then replaced with new animals. As addressed, the organisms had little to no similarity to previous creatures. Sure there will always be similarity in DNA, but this is based primarily on presuppositions. (For example, we could expect a common Designer to build creatures in a similar way, for they live on a similar planet [the same planet - Earth], and we could expect him to have a 'blueprint' for life, so to speak). Paleontologists have searched for expected precursors to many major groups of organisms, but they have not found a pattern of gradual change that Charles Darwin was waiting for. We have instead found explosions of novel biological form.We find distinctive, complex anatomical features. The aggressive (and I would say arguably the world's most famous present atheist) biologist Richard Dawkins himself admitted, "It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history". But he goes on to say that admitting that a Creator made them would be a 'god of the gaps'. But this again, as I have stated, is just him remaining loyal to his materialistic philosophy - not following evidence. But I do agree they were not 'planted there'; on the contrary, they were suddenly made. We have not found a clear tree of life in genetics nor paleontology. As the journal"New Scientist"put it, "different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories". And going back to abiogenesis, I definitely do not believe accepting a divine Author of life is a 'god of the gaps'. It is extremely difficult for evolutionists to explain the origin of life from a primordial soup in earth's early hostile environment. Evolutionary biologist, Massimo Pigliucci, has proclaimed, "we really don"t have a clue how life originated on Earth by natural means'. All of above mentioned is evidence for a divine Creator - a lot of it. We should not be looking for physical evidence for an immaterial, transcendent Creator (comparable for us looking for a physical arm of an angel, or having a huge finger write on the moon 'You have a Maker'). But we look at his supposed creation. And if we throw speculation out the window and look at present, empirical evidence, I hold it points a Designer (complexity of life, fine-tuning of universe, laws of logic, etc.). I think you misunderstand what laws of logic are. The laws of logic are conceptual; they exist in the mind. The laws of physics may be conceptual as statements, but they describe actual physical behavior in our world that we observe. Logical absolutes cannot be observed. When we observe anything (even the laws of nature) we are assigning logical absolutes to the observations we make; that is, we assign something conceptual* to our observation of reality. We must presume logic; even if we are trying to prove the laws of logic exist we must assume their existence in the first place (which is circular). (And so, science cannot prove logic - it presumes it.) The laws of logic are generally referred to as the law of identity, law of non-contradiction, and law of excluded middle. So these laws are eternal (e.g., God is eternally omniscient or not; there is no 'middle ground' [I'm using the law of excluded middle, which says that something has to be either true or false). But on the contrary, nature is not eternal; God created nature. So when Christ walked on water, laws of logic were not broken (e.g., he either walked on water or he did not; or he wasn't waling on water while at the same time not, etc.). The laws of logic, which are eternal, were *not* broken, and so, even the laws of nature are dependent on the laws of logic. And the laws of logic are again immaterial; we cannot bump our head on the law of non-contradiction, for example. I'll have to continue on the multiverse (and basically all of your fourth point in the final round; but since this is your last time responding, I want to make known that I am excited for our last round, and I thank you for the respectful discussion. It has been a pleasure.