The Kalam Cosmological argument.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So you're saying that DNA resembles a man-made creation.  Which one?

Signature in the Cell would answer that question, Angrboda. Wiki: "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design is a 2009 book about intelligent design by philosopher and intelligent design advocate Stephen C. Meyer." 

Have you read it, or do you want me to summarize the arguments? Briefly, the Genetic Code in DNA is evidence/proof of a Designing Intelligence, the same as "Welcome to Mars" leaflets, if known not to come from human beings, would be proof of Intelligent Life on Mars, because Language itself is a Code, one of the most basic forms of a Code, that conveys information. This argument, and others, are developed in depth by Dr. Meyer.

And, Fake Messiah, it is not that I don't know what Evolution claims. I know it very well, and that's why I reject it. Since I simply lack a belief in the Theory of Evolution, I don't have to prove anything, according to your own Atheist principles. Why don't you first of all state the Evolutionist Belief, and then offer the Proof of that Belief? Which Ape exactly was the "Uncle" to both Human Beings and Chimpanzees? Why, if we're allegedly "cousins" with today's Chimpanzees, are we unable to breed with them, as Monkey-boy Darwin's theory would imply we can. We did not come from Apes, that is a Darwinist Sophism intelligently but cruelly designed by those who hate you and want you to believe you are Monkeys and born of Monkeys so that your thoughts no longer arise to God and to Heaven. I am aware many of the Scientists I cite are ID Theorists, that is true.

Darwin was also a Vicious White Racist, and his Theory provides a "scientific" justification for Racism, just like he himself was a Vicious Racist.

As an aside, you cannot argue anything into existence.

That is true. But many theorems are not immediately evident as true, e.g. Pythagoras' Theorem, but become evident once some axioms are laid down, and the proof is derived from them.

It’s not seriously arguable that Darwin was a racist. Though, for his time and place, he was a comparatively mild and enlightened one.

But Darwin’s attitudes regarding race are completely inconsequential to evolutionary theory. Claiming otherwise is ad hominem. I’ll add it to the list.

Boru