Why there is no god

Allow me to continue to address my opponent's claims and defend my argument.Pro states, ". . .there is a tremendous gap, approximately 4 billion years, that creationists in general seem to avoid at all costs." How does this address my argument? My opponent said that my argument from genetic information is a "god-of-the-gaps" argument; what does the age of the Earth have to do with it? I would be glad to have a debate on this topic but this is not the issue at hand. Pro claims, "The arguments presented by my opponent are mostly faith based and what little scientific information is presented demonstrates a rudimentary understanding of the sciences." To this I ask, what part of my argument was based on faith and not observable evidence? Also, what have I failed to understand in the presenting of my argument? To say this without showing which statements were incorrect and why sounds a bit like a bluff. Pro complains, "Also, my opponent uses incredible sources for his arguments, namely answersingenesis.org, with information solely supplied by a faith based culture and no that of the scientific community." That my sources are from those who believe the Bible to be true does not mean that their science claims are inaccurate nor does their faith exclude them from being part of the "scientific community." This is a red herring and ad hominem. My opponent ought to address the science arguments not the faith of the arguer.Pro states, "answersingenesis.org makes the claim that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old, and starts counting on the first day of creation, which is solely a faith based argument for the question of the age of the Earth." I am glad my opponent is familiar with the full extent and breadth of the arguments from creationists (insert sarcasm here). Answers in Genesis provides dozens of scientific articles and technical papers addressing the age of the Earth, so no, a "young" Earth is not a solely faith based position.Pro claims, "Isotopic dating of rocks is tried, tested, and true." Apparently my opponent is totally unaware of the hundreds of inconsistencies of radioisotope dating results and the failure for these methods to even date rocks of known age such as newly hardened magma. While this has no bearing on the issue at hand, it should be made known that there are three major problems with attempting to rely on radioisotope measurements to provide any kind of accurate age for a given rock sample: one must assume a set ratio of primary isotopes, when the "clock" starts, a constant rate of decay must be assumed despite known mechanisms of decay interference, and most egregiously one must assume that no significant contamination has occurred over a span of millions or even billions of years.Pro philosophically asks, ". . .why would god, knowing the intentions of mankind, let his creation be subject to "marring" and changing the intended purpose of this creation." While there are biblical answers to answer this question, I wonder how addressing this concern would impact the veracity of my argument. My opponent seemed to take issue with his anticipated "free will" answer, however I fail to see how foreknowledge necessitates predetermination. God certainly could have desired for man to be autonomous and fully capable of conscious, willful decisions while still maintaining a knowledge of the future. Regardless, any answer does not negate the fact that creation has been marred. Pro argues, "'Sin' is not scientifically quantifiable at all, whereas the information I have provided is quantifiable and can be tested and refined using the scientific method." Firstly, I would greatly appreciate a quantifiable means of demonstrating how the universe created itself, how radioisotopic measurements yield a reliable age, and how natural selection and adaptation resulted in "molecules-to-man" evolution. If it fails my opponent to provide such a demonstration, then a recant is in order. Also, I agree that sin is not scientifically quantifiable as it is a moral construct which God has ordained and not a physical entity. I simply gave a theological answer to a philosophical question. Again this has no bearing on the issue at hand; my evidence from genetic information is quantifiable and can be tested using the scientific method. Pro cites proposed evidence of the creation of genetic information via natural processes claiming, "According to research done by Henrik Kaessmann, from the Center for Integrative Genomics at the University of Lausanne, novel genes also regularly arose from messenger RNAs of ancestral genes, protein-coding genes metamorphosed into new RNA genes, genomic parasites were co-opted as new genes, and that both protein and RNA genes were composed from scratch (i.e., from previously nonfunctional sequences). Essentially, prokaryotic bacteria, with the help of RNA, developed new genes that led to the formation of eukaryotic bacteria." My opponent apparently believes that the cited paper provides evidence of novel gene formation of the type that would be found in the definition domain of universal information as explained in my argument. However this example fails to address my argument for two main reasons, the formation of these genes are reliant upon pre-existing information and are thus not novel, and their functionality is absent. Allow me to address the nature of their functionality first:Throughout the paper I noticed that it is repeatedly stated that the functional outcome of these re-arranged genes is yet to be determined. Mutations are a real and ubiquitous occurrence in genomes, however rarely do these mutations ever confer a beneficial function, and even in such cases it there seems to be an extant driving message which triggers the mutation. "Creationists are making a strong case that genomes are not static and that the DNA sequence can change over time, but they are also stating that some of these changes are controlled by genetic algorithms built into the genomes themselves." Concerning mutations, most proposed "gain-of-function" changes are the result of deteriorated genes and thus are downhill in terms of novel information."Mutations can create new varieties of old genes, as can be seen in white-coated lab mice, tailless cats, and blue-eyed people. But damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken). Also, not all new traits are caused by mutation! Some come about by unscrambling pre-existing information, some from decompressing packed information, some from turning on and off certain genes. . .The development of new functions is the only thing important for evolution. We are not talking about small functional changes, but radical ones. Some organism had to learn how to convert sugars to energy. Another had to learn how to take sunlight and turn it into sugars. Another had to learn how to take light and turn it into an interpretable image in the brain. These are not simple things, but amazing processes that involve multiple steps, and functions that involve circular and/or ultra-complex pathways will be selected away before they have a chance to develop into a working system. . .Saying a gene can be copied and then used to prototype a new function is not what evolution requires, for this cannot account for radically new functionality. Thus, gene duplication cannot answer the most fundamental questions about evolutionary history. Likewise, none of the common modes of mutation (random letter changes, inversions, deletions, etc.) have the ability to do what evolution requires."The cited paper Pro gives fails to provide evidence of truly novel gene formation. Pre-existing genetic information exposed to carefully chosen segments of RNA, or DNA that is exposed to carefully chosen and artificially produced environmental parameters do not constitute examples of novel gene production of the type which falls within the definition domain of universal information. I can scramble a computer code, for example, make duplications of random segments, and delete random segments, yet I will fail to produce any novel universal information as the code will be unintelligible. This is the point, with universal information their is a sender, receiver and a process of making sense of the message. If the message makes no sense, it is useless. I fail to see the evidence that is claimed in the paper and I ask Pro to demonstrate the quantifiable mechanisms behind even one proposed example of the formation of novel genetic information which is not constrained to the informatic confines of its genomic origin. How do we know these changes are not the result of pre-programmed algorithmic instructions? In what way do these changes confer functionality? And how does the proposed novel genetic information meet the standards of universal information.Thus far Pro has yet to contend with my given scientific laws of information, and has failed to provide an example where universal information as seen in the genome of living organisms is generated via natural, statistical processes.Pro claims, ". . .in the absence of pure scientific information, my opponent has made an attempt at a faith vs. fact argument." Again I ask, what part of my primary argument is faith-based? In what way is my argument unscientific? My opponent ought not allow these claims to remain bald assertions.Pro ends with the statement, "Faith is, for lack of a better term, substance, which cannot be quantified or tested using the scientific method, therefore, cannot be a trusted source for scientific information." In essence Pro is claiming that anything unquantifiable by means of the scientific method cannot be trusted. I wonder though in what way Pro is able to utilize the scientific method to prove his statement? On to Pro... Referenceshttp://www.icr.org... http://creation.com...