Does God exist

Why do sunflowers and other plants abide by mathematical rules? Evolutionists theorise that sunflowers can pack in the maximum number of seeds if each seed is separated by an irrational-numbered angle. But nature could not "know" this in advance, so they assume that nature "stumbled" by accidental mutation upon the fibonacci sequence, which was then selected by natural selection. The fibonacci sequence is only one example of math in nature. Snowflakes exhibit six-fold radial symmetry, with elaborate, identical patterns on each arm. Another accidental discovery? The nautilus mollusk all adhere to some type of logarithmic spiral. Another chance mutation? Was it blind, unintelligent, natural forces that taught bees how to create incredible hexagonal figures in all their honeycombs? We humans beings need the assistance of a compass and ruler to reproduce it, so how did bees "know" how to do it without any tools? Where does the programming for this come from? For us to do it, we need to consciously be "AWARE" of what we are doing, and this information must be "LEARNED," but bees can't learn the way we do, so they need to be programmed. By who, or what? Con may say "instinct," but then, what's that anyway? How does that different from "programming"? I don't have enough faith to believe that evolution could turn bees into architectural masterminds! Like nautilus shells and sunflowers, each wing of our galaxy symbolises a logarithmic spiral, is natural selection choosing patterns in space too? I thought there was no natural selection in space! Why are orb web spiders so geometrically inclined to make create near-perfect circular webs that have near-equal-distanced radial supports coming out of the middle and a spiral that is woven to catch prey? These are no more effificent at catching prey than irregular shaped webs, so they couldn't be chosen by natural selection for that. And many spiders who have the capacity to make such webs don't seem to bother with it. Another freak accident of nature? Was it sheer coincidence, that the sun"s width is roughly four hundred times larger than that of the moon, while the sun is about four hundred times further away, creating a symmetry in ratio which causes the moon and sun to appear almost the same size when seen from Earth, making it possible for the moon to block the sun when the two align - giving us a total eclipse? Is it just chance that we just happened to be in the right place, at the right time to witness such a celestial event? Con's answer is evolution via natural selection, but relying on such chance mutations only multiplies the improbability of a natural cause for life into the realm of "magic." "No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning . . . there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." (Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: Dent, 1981), p. 148, 24) What Con is proposing is so improbable we can't take it seriously. For example: Out of 300 amino acids, only 20 are used for proteins (the building blocks of life), so the selection process has to be very discriminating. We can't say natural selection choose these 20 above the other 180 because these are no more popular than the other 180; its not like the 180 other amino acids died out. Secondly, the natural tendency is for left- and right-handed amino acid molecules to bond indiscriminately, but all 20 amino acids used for proteins are left-handed. To get a small protein of 100 left-handed amino acids from an equal mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids, the probability would then be 1 chance in 10 to the 30th power (or 1 followed by 30 zeros), but this small chance only measures the possibility of getting all left-handed amino acids. It does not say anything about their order. Third, in a chain of 100 amino acids, each position can be occupied by any 1 of 20 different amino acids common to living things, and these must be in a specific order to form a functional protein. What is the probability that the correct amino acid will be placed in position number 1 of the chain? It will be 1/20. What is the probability that the first two positions will be correct? This can be calculated by multiplying the two probabilities together (1/20 x 1/20 = 1/202). Therefore, the probability of getting all 100 amino acids in the correct position would be 1/20 multiplied by itself 100 times (this equates to 1 chance in 1 followed by 130 zeros)! The mathematician Emile Borel proposed that anything with a chance less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power never happens. (Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life (New York, NY: Dover, 1962), p. 28) Evolutionists try to escape this by assuming a large pre-biotic soup covering the whole earth to give these small probabilities enough "chances" to occur, but this pond of chemicals would be saturated with all the wrong amino acids and other chemicals for bonding, making even the right combinations that could form no longer usable. What would stop the wrong combinations from contaminating the right ones? Amino acids need to capture and convert energy from the sun in order to bond. (Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life"s Origin (Dallas, TX: Lewis and Stanley, 1992), p. 55) But to build such an energy converter requires energy from the sun to be converter. A catch-22 situation. (p. 124) Worse still, the first living cell must be in place before natural selection can even function. Can may give the TalkOrigins argument: "The formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly NOT random." But THAT'S NOT TRUE. If it happens naturally, then why can"t scientists duplicate this in the lab? Amino acids do not spontaneously bond together to make proteins. First, it takes a source of energy to do this. Second, the natural tendency is to bond left- and right-handed amino acids, but life requires all left-handed amino acids. Third, they must be in the correct order or the protein will not function properly. Fourth, it requires the instructions of DNA to get the right amino acids. Where did DNA come from? Fifth, protein molecules tend to break down in the presence of oxygen or water. Con says "no one is saying that complex organisms are formed completely randomly ," so show me left-handed amino acids binding all by themselves in nature with no human intervention! You can't! Con assumes that plants with no symmetrical or mathematical structure are the "wrong" ones and will die out, but thousands of plant today that have no such thing are still alive today. He doesn't explain how complex formulas arose by accident before they can be "selected." Pro says "evolution doesn't have to make logical sense in nature for it to work," but God does? He says "Simply because you don't see a rational or logical reason for non-Fibonacci flowers to come about by natural selection, doesn't mean they didn't," but because he doesn't see a logical reason for God to make the universe this way, that means He didn't? As for you house with leaky sewage etc, would you conclude nobody built it? It just happened to be there through by nature? Even what you see as "bad design" in this case comes from an intelligent mind. "Same with the universe." And how did you know its possible that the laws of physics as we have are more probable than other combinations? Occam's Razor removes the multiverse theory for which there is no evidence! What we do have evidence of, is intelligent design all over the universe that can only be rationally explained by a Creator - from the math and design in living things, to the fine-tuning of the universe.