Existing scientific evidence justifies believe in God

Let me clarify to everyone including CON the stipulations of this debate. The BOP is on me, which means my job here is to bring all the scientific evidence together that would make enough of a case to justify an individual to believe in a Theistic God. The only thing CON needs to do is to thwart my attempts by attacking the interpretations I give for the evidence. Lastly, I am not required to bring links along side my sources, especially when links are unreliable because they often don't work or the content inside the link can go away easily. Remember, the subject matter is science not philosophy. Scientific journals would not tolerate the usage of links, and since CON is acting as the peer-reviewer, the onus is on him to use my sources to find those links himself. Omnibenevolence Digital information is composed of abstract objects and analog information is composed of concrete objects. DNA possesses these types of information processes where the nucleotide sequence both specifies the digital information of the gene and the higher order architectures of the genome, which have an impact on the expression of the digital information found in the gene [1]. More importantly, both the digital and analog information present in DNA are imitations of our conscious agency. For example, the genome is virtually identical to computer operating systems [2], and the genetic information in DNA is mathematically identical to that in human language [3]. Of course, some scientists insist that these comparisons between DNA information and human information are merely used in a metaphorical sense [4]. This contradicts the work done by biotechnologists who store specified information within the nucleotide sequences of DNA or RNA. For instance, Church and Kosuri were able to create a biotech version of an e-reader, with the highest storage capacity to date [5]. Furthermore, digital information has been shown to be unquestionably necessary for replication and for cells to have instructions to build themselves into large body organisms. The digital code is required before any kind of evolution can occur. This means that the same personal cause, which created and designed the universe, must have created and designed life on earth. If this is true, we should find function or purpose from alleged designs that seem to only bring harm and degeneration upon that organism or to other organisms. Here is a showcase of alleged evil designs that challenge the integrity of a omnibenevolent being. A. Viruses are considered evil designs because they are responsible for a number of harmful diseases in animals and humans, such as the ebola virus. However, studies show how viruses play a vital role within ocean nutrient cycles [6]. The beneficial role of viruses applies to terrestrial environments as well since viruses modulate host population ecology, food web structure, energy and nutrient flow between habitats, and apparent competition processes, and they favor habitat formation [7]. Consequently, viruses are natural but necessary evils. B. Carnivores are considered sinister designs because they often are responsible for producing mass extinctions within herbivore populations. However, several studies show how animal death and carnivorous activity play a necessary role in preventing an overpopulation of herbivores that would potentially go extinct from starvation by eating all their food sources and the fixation of harmful mutations within populations that would potentially cause the population to become extinct as well [8][9]. C. In animals, injury can lead to long-lasting distress, whereby frequent exposure to pain-producing stimuli causes a progressively amplified response well after the injury has healed. This phenomenon has been referred to as “nociceptive sensitization.” Biomedical researchers have long viewed nociceptive sensitization as maladaptive because, in humans, it is associated with anxiety. However, researchers studied nociceptive sensitizations in squids and concluded that heightened sensitivity to pain helps these creatures evade predation. Squids are an outstanding laboratory model because they undertake a precise sequence of defensive behaviors when threatened by a predator. For instance, when endangered, squids fully recovered from a previous injury reacted sooner than those that had not been injured. Conversely, the previously injured squids exhibited a slower response to predatory threats when the scientists used anesthetic to block the pain immediately after injury, thus preventing nociceptive sensitization. Since nociceptive sensitization is pervasive, it likely serves a similar benefit among other animals, as well. Thus, these results indicate that pain (or suffering) plays a key role in enhancing the survival of animals following an injury and recovery [10]. Cancer and harmful mutations The harmful effects of cancerous mutations in organisms is primarily a result of decay imposed by the second law of thermodynamics rather than being a sinisterly designed organism. However, some might argue that an all-powerful all-knowing morally perfect designer, who cares for the well-being of its creation, could have more effectively designed living organisms in which these instances would not occur at all. However, the second law is a property of quantum physics as well as classical physics, which means the second law would have to exist in all possible worlds unlike other laws of nature [11]. This suggests that suspension of the second law (i.e., a miracle) would be required to prevent them from occurring at all. Since the laws of physics are a reflection of this designer’s personal nature, we would not expect a miracle to happen. Instead, we would expect the designer to remain consistent and use the laws of nature to eliminate these instances. For example, the researchers discovered that the hot- and cold-spot locations in mutations are not random [12]. They went further to explain how current knowledge of factors influencing the mutation rate does not explain these observations, suggesting that other mechanisms must be involved. Thus, it appears that the mutation rates have been fine-tuned to lower the risk of harmful genetic changes [13]. A similar study suggested that mutations are guided by both the physical properties of the genetic code and the need to preserve critical protein function [14]. There are other studies that show how the harmful mutations that do arise are regulated to preserve a balance between predator and prey populations because too many predators or prey can cause a collapse of the ecosystem [15][8]. Thus, mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA are abundantly involved in apoptosis, which is the single most important feature of multicellularity because it ensures timely death of individual cells. Cancer may be the ecological equivalent of apoptosis, ensuring the timely death of individuals so that resources are available for the young. Perhaps, there is sufficient reason in allowing some of these deleterious mutations to occur in humans as well. For example, the sickle cell disease has been shown to confer a survival advantage against malaria, the disease caused by Plasmodium infection [16]. In addition, there are examples of cancer cells developing through viral infection and thus, as stated before, viruses are necessary evils. Further research might find more cases like these in other genetic diseases [17]. In the next round, I will provide a rebuttable to my opponents objections.[1] Muskhelishvili G, Travers A. Integration of Syntactic and Semantic Properties of the DNA Code Reveals Chromosomes as Thermodynamic Machines Converting Energy into Information. Cell Mol Life Sci 2013; 70:4555–4567.[2] Yan KK et al. Comparing Genomes to Computer Operating Systems in Terms of the Topology and Evolution of Their Regulatory Control Networks. PNAS 2010; 107:9186–9191. [3] Yockey H. Self-organization origin of life scenarios and information theory. Theo. Bio. 1981; 91. [4] Pigliucci M, Boudry M. Why Machine-Information Metaphors are Bad for Science and Science Education. Sci. and Ed. 2011; 20: 453–471. [5] Church, G. M., Gao, Y. & Kosuri, S. (2012). Next-generation digital information storage in DNA. Science 337, 6102.[6] Danovaro, R et al. (2008). Major viral impact on the functioning of benthic deep-sea ecosystems. Nature 454: 1084–1087. [7] Lefèvre, T., Lebarbenchon, C., Missé, D., Poulin, R., Thomas, F. (2009). The ecological significance of manipulative parasites. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24, 41–48.[8] Moore, S. M., Borer, E. T. & Hosseiniet, P. R. (2010) Predators indirectly control vector-borne disease: linking predator–prey and host–pathogen models. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 7, 161–176. [9] Schmitz, O. J., Hawlena, D. & Trussell, G. C. (2010) Predator control of ecosystem nutrient dynamics. Ecology Letters 13, 1199–209. [10] Crook et.al. (2014) Nociceptive sensitization reduces predation risk. Current Biology 24, 1121–25.[11] Aron C. Wall. The Generalized Second Law implies a Quantum Singularity Theorem. Class. Quantum Grav. 30, 165003 (2013) [12] Martincorena I., Seshasayee, A. S. & Luscombe, N. M. (2012). Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy. Nature 485, 95–98. [13] Martincorena, I. & Luscombe, N. M. (2013). Non-random mutation: the evolution of targeted hypermutation and hypomutation. Bioessays 35, 123–130. [14] Garvin, M. R. & Gharrett, A. J. (2014). Evolution: are the monkeys' typewriters rigged? Royal Society of Open Science 1, 140172.[15] Gilljam, D., Curtsdotter, A., Ebenman, B. (2015) Adaptive rewiring aggravates the effects of species loss in ecosystems. Nature Communications, 2015; [16] Ferreira, A. et al.(2011) Sickle Hemoglobin Confers Tolerance to Plasmodium Infection. Cell 145, 398–409[17] Morelli, G. et al. (2004). DNA microarray analysis of genome dynamics in Yersinia pestis: insights into bacterial genome microevolution and niche adaptation. Journal of Bacteriology 186, 5138–5146.