God exists

As all can see, I gave the source for my quotation, and put it in inverted commas to shwo I was quoting someone in my last paragraph of the previous round, and as I was out of space for characters I didn't give the name of the author; anyone could look that up by hitting the link. Had I been trying to get away with something, I would have given no link in the first place. Nor did I copy so much of my argument as Con claims I did. What I did quote, I gave my sources, so I think this is just a cop-out by Con. In fact, he said that this debate is "over," and we still have another round, so I'm wondering if he's even going to reply. He says he's not replying to the part on morality anymore just because it was from a previous round? He also argues that 8000 characters is enough space to adequately reply to all of someone's arguments in a round; I guess the voters will use their past experience to decide if that's the case. How many times did you wish DDO allowed more characters to give you chance to make a more thorough response? Sometimes when we summarize to get in points, we have to omit many details that prove our case, and the summary merely amounts to a claim without all the evidence to show it. I rather reply in full to some of an argument than to make just partial responses to all. Since he's not replying to argument from orality anymore, I'll just close it by saying the basic universal core of morality is best explained by God, not evolution, for in the animal kingdom there is no reason why we'd be moral altogether. I don't have enough space to reply to each example he uses about slavery, abortion, etc, which are complex issues in themselves that can take up another debate. "(1) Miller's experiment, while not complete, does demonstrate the creation of amino acids from abiological situation." Miller intervened to remove the 4 amino acids from the area of the spark so they wouldn't be destroyed, in doing so, he was playing God. In nature, there would (on the atheist view) be no intelligent being to remove them. Without this intervention by an inleligence, Miller would not have gotten "any" amino acids. He didn't just let "nature" run its course to see if things would evovle, he intervened. I also showed how impossible it was for amino acids forming in the atmophere to drift down and form an organic soup in the ocean; so Miller began with a biological situation that could not have happened anyway. "Just like abiogenesis, your theological argument is also a theory, and has never been demonstrated." Life is demonstrated to come from other living things ever time a child is born; and complex organization is demonstrated to come from a mind every time man builds a machine. The brain if a far more complexed and organized "machine," it had to come from somewhere. That life originates with previous life is a proven, observed, testable, scientific fact. There is no currently known case of life that didn't come from a previous life. Also, information that carries meaning points to a mind. A single cell contains all the necessary information for developing a human being. This information carries meaning; it includes the instructions to the cells after the one cell duplicates into many, telling each set of cells which separate funtions to accomplish. If you tried to publish your account of God's creation of the earth in a science or philosophy journal, it would merely be laughed at, as you have no evidence nor details of how this happened." When scientist publish their journals on evolution, other scientists who believe differently laugh at them for being so ignorant. Truth is, many scientists know God exists. But I think your argument is flawed because who laughs at an argument doesn't prove or disprove its validity. What if I name a list of scientists who are experts in their fields that don't buy into your argument? Does that make you wrong? Truth isn't decided by majority vote. "(2) Life does come from life, and no model has ever been proven where life has come from life. So your assertion that life can come from an non-living entity (ie. a supernatural deity) is equally as absurd as anything I say." I never said that "life can come from an non-living entity." God is not a non-living entity. God is a living being. "(3) Sure. It's easy to assume that the physical universe had a beginning. But to pretend that you know what it is is as absurd as saying it had no beginning." I'm not assuming anything. The current astronomical data tells us that the universe did have a beginning and is expanding, which means it was at one time much smaller. Interestingly, its not slowing down, but speeding up. Atrophysicists have settled on the big-bang theory for the most part, but the point is that they agree the universe did begin. And the evidence they present for a beginning is quite impressive, unlike that for evolution. The constants of the universe need to be so finely tuned for life at the very start of the "bang" that even if the electomagnetic force was a bit stronger or weaker by just one zero, no life would exist in the universe. The same could be said about many other constants. The odds of getting them all so finely tuned for life at random or by chance is soooooo small, that many astronomers and scientist attribute it all to an intelligence. The electromagnetic force is about 10 to the 40th power times that of gravity. If we change this to 10 to 41, so that gravity is just a little weaker, stars would be smaller, their interiors couldn't generate enough heat for nuclear fusion reactions, and the sun couldn's shine. If it were 10 to the 39th, the sun would die a lot sooner, we would not be here. The strong nuclear force binds protons and nutrons together the the atom's nucleus. This bonding allows certain elements to form like helium, oxygen, gold and lead. If this force were %2 weaker, only hydrogen would exist; if %2 stronger, only heavier elements but no hydrogen would exist. Without hydrogen the sun wouldn't have the fuel needed to generate life-giving energy, and we would not be here. So its obvious that the universe is "deliberately" fine-tuned for life, obvious except for those blinded by their bias that God cannot exist. " A man and a woman are both humans- the SAME species. A lion and a zebra aren't. I don't have solidarity for the fish I eat. Doesn't prove anything." Lions kill each other too. My argument stands unimpeached.