Does God exist

I will first note your continued lack of responsiveness to most of my arguments: (1) homo sapiens being created in god's image as opposed to the opposite; (2) the anthropomorphization of god; (3) impact and application of the history of creation stories; (4) the possibility of highly capable and complex beings as a result of billions of years of evolution by natural selection; (5) the role and scope of mental illness and imperfection with regard to certainty and doubt on beliefs in deities; (6) the inability of our species to take general knowledge of the partial and extrapolated to knowledge of the "whole;" (7) the monomania of insisting on answers, answer, answers; (8) the role of the law of attraction within consciousness on any particular individual's insistence on a belief in a deity; (9) the role that the scientific and technological revolution has had on developing our understanding of the origins of the universe; (10) the refusal to accept uncertainty and "the fundamental anxiety of human existence" by those who would prefer to find absolute authority in religious texts and institutions.I will begin by pointing out that Pro has admitted to only 80% of our DNA serving a purpose, and he has failed to give a reason for the other 20% of junk DNA.On EvolutionYou have grossly misrepresented the facts of evolution by natural selection. Gradual improvement within a species does not mean that any one particular organism is non-functioning. It simply means that those who are wired as wired to be stronger, faster, etc. (whatever adaptation is best for the environment in which they are found) will reproduce and eventually "beat out" the lesser creatures of their own species. It does not mean, however, that those with sub-par wiring (any biology students, please forgive my probably incorrect terminology with "wiring," as I am primarily a humanities student, but you get the jist) are not able to function. In a sense, some particular species are less further evolved, but that in no way means they cannot breathe, digest, reproduce, etc. It comes down to the advantages natural selection has provided the species in the process thus far. (http://www.amazon.com...)I feel you have also confused a major part of evolution which is our species insistence on certain characteristics of the cosmos being intrinsically "designed" for our benefit. Chocolate cake is not sweet in and of itself. Glucose under a microscope gives no way of seeing it as sweet. Instead, we have evolved to prefer sweet food for its intrinsic quality of having high energy. The same is true of things that cause sex appeal -- there is nothing intrinsically "sexy" about highly-attractive individuals. We have been wired to find certain characteristics as "sexy," and if this weren't the case we would have a hard time seeing apes reproduce. They do, in fact, reproduce because they are wired to find sex appeal in other apes. (http://www.ted.com...)You have also failed to incorporate Ockam's razor (lex parsimoniae) into your analysis. The fact of the matter is that the genetic similarities between species can be attributed to a process that does not require a designer. As Laplace said when giving his model of the solar system in court when asked where the "intelligent designer" was, he simply replied "It functions without that assumption." (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor)"Creation" as a Divine MiracleA miracle must be defined as a suspension of the natural order. Those who claim that the big bang or evolution are miraculous in and of themselves have twisted this definition. What is natural, and what comes about by natural processes, cannot be defined as miraculous (the suspension of that very same nature). You are correct, that the burden of proof is on those who agree with evolution. Until you actually read Darwin, until you look at the astounding amount of evidence which has been collected and agreed upon by a enormous majority of scientists, I would suggest not claiming it is false. It also comes down the the unfalsifiability of an argument or theory. Evolution can conceptually be easily disproved. Many have pointed out that all it would take is finding a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian. However, it has not happened. There is not one shred of substantial evidence against evolution. Looking "Within Yourself" to understand Truth of "Creation"You have once again failed to give reason to believe that understanding of parts of the whole can be extrapolated to understand the whole in its entirety. Your discussion of a flower shows that there are numerous things that go into a flower's growth, but alas none of them point to a creator. None of them point to a status of miraculousness, either, in that what you described are all natural processes, and thus cannot be defined as something which is defined as the suspension of the natural order. Arguments to the contrary are twisting definitions of words and using rhetorical trickery. We know how to grow a flower -- we can create mass amounts of crops because we have come to understand the process quite well. Again, read up on agricultural technology. That should answer many of the questions which you posit and seem to assume we, as a species, don't have an answer to.