God exists

I thank Con for participating in this debate. He says that "just because something has not been proven doesn't necessarily allow us to confirm that it is impossible." That's true, however, its not possible until it can be shown to be "plausible." You reference the Miller-Urey experiment, let me show you why this is not plausible. In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an "atmosphere" of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible. Miller assumed that earth's primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: "The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions." (The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33) Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: "With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays." (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 65) How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an "organic soup" in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an "atmosphere," Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them. So Miller was playing God, manaeuvering events to make life, not letting nature take its course. Without a conscious entity (Miller) to romove the 4 amino acids from the spark area they would die, so too, who was the conscious entity that removed them back at creation? Hmmm. Just because what we know of the natural world tells us that life comes from life, this makes it more likely that life on earth came from previous life; we do not know that life comes from non-life, hence, we cannot appeal to that as a cause. Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: "It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization." (Scientific American, "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life," by Richard E.ï¿½Dickerson, September 1978, p. 75) Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: "Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis." This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be "the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists]." (Scientific American, "The Origin of Life," by George Wald, August 1954, pp.ï¿½49, 50) Remember, there are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life's proteins. Moreover, they come in two shapes: Some of the molecules are "right-handed" and others are "left-handed." Should they be formed at random, as in a theoretical organic soup, it is most likely that half would be right-handed and half left-handed. And there is no known reason why either shape should be preferred in living things. Yet, of the 20 amino acids used in producing life's proteins, all are left-handed! How is it that, at random, only the specifically required kinds would be united in the soup? What chance is there that the correct amino acids would come together to form a protein molecule? It could be likened to having a big, thoroughly mixed pile containing equal numbers of red beans and white beans. There are also over 100 different varieties of beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what do you think you would get? To get the beans that represent the basic components of a protein, you would have to scoop up only red ones—no white ones at all! Also, your scoop must contain only 20 varieties of the red beans, and each one must be in a specific, preassigned place in the scoop. In the world of protein, a single mistake in any one of these requirements would cause the protein that is produced to fail to function properly. Would any amount of stirring and scooping in our hypothetical bean pile have given the right combination? No. Then how would it have been possible in the hypothetical organic soup? The proteins needed for life have very complex molecules. What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10 to the 113th power (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 10 to the 50th power is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. Its not just unlikely, its impossible. A simply row of leaves in a straight line cries out for an intelligent mind behind it, how much more so does the chain of left-handed amino acids and other vastly more complex things in our bodies. Now, since life only comes from life, life must have always existed. But the universe did not, so at some point along the chain of ancestors we will reach a being existing before the universe, but by definition, that would be a supernatural being just because it is outside of nature. That means God, a supernatural entity. Weather this God came from a prior being before it would not refute my argument for his existence. So the question of where did God come from doesn't refute my argument. It might refute some of Christianities concepts of God, but not theism itself. Even Mormon's believe in a created God and yet claim to be Christian. But its possible that there was a first life which always existed. Now, given that we look designed, we must recon it by a supernatural entity because saying its aliens only pushes the same question to another planet; where did they come from? We will get back to the beginning of the universe at some point. Con claims that the Holocaust does not represent the complexity of other moral questions, but that is besides the point. If there is no universal lawgiver (God), then we have no reason (on an atheist or evolutionary world-view) to condemn it. I challenge Con to tell us, do you agree with me that the holocaust was in fact truely evil? If everyone on earth agreed that it was a good thing, would that make it so? Deep down, even you, know that some things truely are wrong regardless of what other people think; that rape, child molestation, etc, truely are evil, and its not just your opinion. These things are really wrong; and certain things are turely good, like love, respect, generosity, joy. If evolution is true, and there is no God, we are deluding ourselves, and our sense of morality mocks us. There is no justice after death. There is no hell. No heaven. No resurrection; and if I can get away with raping a 6 year old girl, and stealing a blind woman's purse, I should do it for my own benefit, for that's what life is about - survival of the fittest, natural selection! Why should I bother to do what is right even when no one is looking? Can Con answer these questions? The removal of God removes the foundations of morality. I will answer the rest of Con's argument in the next post.