The existence of life is proof of the existence of God. That's the end of the story. The language of DNA makes the Rosetta Stone look like the scribbles of ch

The existence of life is proof of the existence of God. That's the end of the story. The language of DNA makes the Rosetta Stone look like the scribbles of children. No technology ever conceived by the mind of Man can hold a torch to the complexity and intricacy of the technology of life. We don't even understand it. It is not just a machine, it is a machine to build a machine. It is "code" in the most profound sense of the word. Frankly, it is language. A poet might call it poetry. (And, of course, all human poetry is its by-product.) You referred earlier to "some increasingly gap-reduced hypotheses...", which is just another assumption you've made that is not only unwarranted but at odds with the actual "progress" being made on this front. The more powerful our exploratory tools become, and the more deeply we understand organic chemistry, microbiology, and nanotechnology, the larger the "gaps" appear. In Darwin's day single-celled organisms were assumed to be simple -- just little blobs animated by "life-force". But now we know they are complex machines beyond anything Darwin could have imagined. We are widening the gaps as we learn more, not decreasing them. You are assuming, as is typical, that scientific progress always reduces gaps, and so you conclude that the gaps on this front must be getting reduced. But they are not, and you're merely begging the question again. In fact, a good title for a book on this topic would be "The God of the Gap" because if you want proof of the existence of God, then the existence of life provides it. And not only is the proof clear, but it has been readily apparent to practically all humans since the beginning of time. Only in the last couple hundred years have some midwits arisen who think they have somehow done away with God. Invariably they turn out to merely have a college-level understanding of what science is and how it progresses. By your reasoning, one only needs to assume there is no God in order to conclude there is no God. But reality does not bend to your assumptions, and nor does it bow to your circular conclusions.