[arnsworth1026]

It has been my experience that theists may or may not be anti-science. It has also been my experience that atheists blow their top when a theists does believe in science saying "you believe in God, therefore you can't believe in science" because of their own dogmatic beliefs (yes, atheism requires as much, if not more faith, than theism). If everything is a result of random chance, why doesn't gravity randomly stop working at times? why is everything so structured and designed, especially to support life as we know it (anthropic principle)?

	Any set of standards which starts with "God created the universe." must require a belief in God. Can you start from the observable and logically build to proof, or even probability, of God? If you can, then your philosophy doesn't require belief.

yes, I can actually. DNA and the genetic code. we all know that the information in DNA and the genetic code governs how we form, the process that go on in our body; all kinds of nifty things. Certain sequences of DNA produce certain results, if a part of that sequence is mis-ordered, the result is different.

Here's the kicker: information can not happen on its own, it must be programmed. The physical structure of DNA may or may not have happened randomly, but even if it did, it would be useless without the coding behind it. The easiest analogy is the alphabet. Take this sentence:

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

If you had never learned english, this sentence is just a meaningless jumble of symbols. It is only because, at some pre-existing point, you learned the meaning behind each letter, that this sentence makes sense.

none of this proves who God is, only that God exists.




as for the golden compass, I'd rather read the books. I've never encountered a movie based on a book that did even half as well as could should have (including the LOTR trilogy. man did peter jackson butcher that)

[brewmaster]

Originally Posted by arnsworth1026 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Iyes, I can actually. DNA and the genetic code. we all know that the information in DNA and the genetic code governs how we form, the process that go on in our body; all kinds of nifty things. Certain sequences of DNA produce certain results, if a part of that sequence is mis-ordered, the result is different. Here's the kicker: information can not happen on its own, it must be programmed. The physical structure of DNA may or may not have happened randomly, but even if it did, it would be useless without the coding behind it.

DNA is a very poor argument for the existence of a god, DNAs existence and function is only proof that organisms are highly organized. If you want to call that god, well thats your trip I won't stand in your way.

Structure and the coding data contained within DNA can easily happen randomly.

One of the current theories on DNA and life in general is the RNA world theory, one that I believe is the best current explanation, that I will paraphrase here. Note that I am leaving out details which creates large holes for this to be attacked and that is not the point of this post, the point is just to point out that the random nature of chemistry can work to create information for the sake of its own information. I have brought this down to level someone not in the field can easily understand.

RNA is known to catalyze certain reactions that have in modern evolutionary times been taken over by enzymes (proteins). RNA can randomly polymerize and form elaborate structures, to perform all sorts of reactions currently performed by proteins. Over time, RNA 'learned' to create proteins from itself through concerted action of multiple RNA molecules to perform beneficial tasks for the community. However, the problem with RNA is that it is unstable in the sense that it will perform its own biochemical cleavage and therefore degradation. At some point in the evolutionary history, RNA began to synthesize DNA copies of itself, because DNA is extremely stable. Therefore leading to the current system of DNA leads to mRNA leads to protein, aka the central dogma.

I do not have a problem when people presented with the scientific data then say, well that's god, or gods hand(s) started the process. That belief is fine. I do have a problem when it is used to justify or prove gods existence, or when the facts or data are completely ignored in favor of a faith-based belief system.

[arnsworth1026]

why is it poor? every definition of DNA I've ever encountered uses the word "information" at some point. the vast majority use the word "code" too.

explain to me how information may develop randomly, on its own

(my above argument doesn't preclude evolution btw. it merely means that at the original source was a creator. it didn't happen on accident, even if it may have been designed that to appear that way)

[Oica]

Don't know if anyone has asked yet but...

If evolution is true, and the formation of the universe is how science dictates...

If science is 100% right...

Why couldnt God have facilitated it?

[Rei]

Originally Posted by arnsworth1026 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

why is it poor? every definition of DNA I've ever encountered uses the word "information" at some point. the vast majority use the word "code" too. explain to me how information may develop randomly, on its own (my above argument doesn't preclude evolution btw. it merely means that at the original source was a creator. it didn't happen on accident, even if it may have been designed that to appear that way)

Random trial and error over an extended period of time. If it works, it stays, if it doesn't, it is destroyed.

	Originally Posted by Oica To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Don't know if anyone has asked yet but... If evolution is true, and the formation of the universe is how science dictates... If science is 100% right... Why couldnt God have facilitated it?

Since when has science ever been 100% right?
If you read any formal lab write up, you'd find that scientists never claim that they are right (or they shouldn't). They set up an experiment to test a hypothesis and then they only state what they found and whether it supports the hypothesis, they do not automatically conclude that their hypothesis is right.

[Oica]

it was a theoretical question :/

[brewmaster]

Originally Posted by arnsworth1026 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

why is it poor? every definition of DNA I've ever encountered uses the word "information" at some point. the vast majority use the word "code" too. explain to me how information may develop randomly, on its own (my above argument doesn't preclude evolution btw. it merely means that at the original source was a creator. it didn't happen on accident, even if it may have been designed that to appear that way)

It was poor because you were using it to "start from the observable and logically build to proof, or even probability, of God"

If you adhere to the RNA world theory, which has a lot of data in support, RNA is a self polymerizing, functional molecule, which can randomly form. The first two statements are facts, the last statement is the theory. They may have proven that possible by now, but I haven't looked into this in a long time. This is where information can develop randomly.

To your last statement, I figured that was your angle.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Oica To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Don't know if anyone has asked yet but... If evolution is true, and the formation of the universe is how science dictates... If science is 100% right... Why couldnt God have facilitated it?

If I were to believe in god, this would be my justification. I know many scientists that are religious who use this exact line of reasoning to deal with their knowledge and beliefs in one system.

But I have to give you the broken record atheist viewpoint. I have no data in support of gods existence, and therefore, even though I cannot disagree that what you say is possible, I don't believe it because there is no proof. I wish all religious people would accept a viewpoint like this, if so religion would become a non-issue to me.

[Rei]

	Originally Posted by Oica To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	it was a theoretical question :/

I couldn't theoretically answer the question correctly when the facts stated weren't theoretically correct.
=/

[Oica]

	Originally Posted by Rei To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I couldn't theoretically answer the question correctly when the facts stated weren't theoretically correct. =/

Theoretically, almost anything can be factual. The facts that aren't factual can only be factual in the theoretical.

Very few people like to answer that question.

Brewmaster, that is the basis of faith. You have potentially factual information given to you about the existence of a god. You cannot accept the information as complete fact, so you cannot believe completely that said existence is fact. Religion is not 'knowledge' per se. Religion would only be knowledge if or when it is already 'too late.'

[Rei]

	Originally Posted by Oica To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Theoretically, almost anything can be factual. The facts that aren't factual can only be factual in the theoretical. Very few people like to answer that question.

Not so much that I didn't like to. I just thought an answer wasn't necessary, given that the conditions under which the question was asked were not factual.

Now if I must answer the question, it would be that:
1. I don't think that it's not possible that God facilitated it. Merely that I won't believe it until there is proof that it is impossible for it to happen without such facilitation.
2. Reasoning behind number one: things occur in the 'easiest' way possible (aka it takes the path that requires the least resources). If it were possible for such things to occur without the facilitation of God, sticking the factor of God into the mix would defy the laws of nature.
3. Of course you could always argue that God is a superior being and can stick his nose into whatever he wants. However, that does not prove to me that he exists. In conclusion... ditto brewmaster.

[Oica]

If you cannot rule out the possibility of a deity or the lack thereof, im pretty sure that is almost definitive agnosticism (Agnostic literally meaning without knowledge).

I'd think that logic would not lead to atheism, but rather to agnosticism.

[arnsworth1026]

	Random trial and error over an extended period of time. If it works, it stays, if it doesn't, it is destroyed.

that still only explains the physical structure of DNA. not where the coding came from. the symbols don't mean anything in and of themselves until they are given meaning by an outside influence.

[brewmaster]

RNA structure came first, then the catalytic function of RNA. Next, proteins were formed from a necessity to discriminate between 'parent and copy.' (and a few other things) Finally, proteins made DNA so that the information was stable. The coding did not come from outside influence, rather from a necessity to ensure the catalytic function of molecules that had, as Rei put it developed by trial and error over an extended period of time.

The symbols and coding of nucleic acids are just the nomenclature scientists have put on them, they mean nothing other than the representation of the chemical residues. The 'code' of nucleic acid that makes proteins in modern organisms did NOT precede the function of the molecules they 'make' or are comprised of. This is not a chicken and egg argument, it is backed by an enormous amount of data.

See:
Biology and Philosophy (2005) 20:633-671, David Penny, An Interpretive Review of the Origin of Life Research.

A little light reading, if you can get your hands on it
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[1OFMANY]

Why do people care so much how God made us? I care more about why.

[Rei]

	Originally Posted by 1OFMANY To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why do people care so much how God made us? I care more about why.

I think we're more concerned about whether God made us or not.

[AgentofGaming]

Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I find the perspective of atheistic meaing very interesting, and I don't mean to immediately discount it as though it has no value. I think it does have value, because of the truth it contains that we cannot contact that objective domain directly. I just disagree when said proposition gets to the point of stating there never is any objectivity whatsoever. Humans, as a collective race, are losing touch with their true place in the greater scheme of things. We are moving from stewardship of our environment toward exploitation of it (not that we were ever perfect stewards, either) and we are moving into a globalistic, technological system that has nothing to say about what our place should be within the greater scheme of things, but doesn't hesitate to give us a place according to it's own terms.

Well whether there is meaning or not, contemplating meaning that is not physical is a waste of time.
True that humans are out of the natural environment but that's a consequence of human innovation that and the other creatures did not possess or were able to use that kind of biological advantage before us.

It's odd but wanting a meaning is and everything about the humans damaging the environment sounds like Agent Smith.
As well who says we are we steward our environment? I think we grew too powerful for it so it gets overconsumed

I don't know, but my argument always leads back to, why bother to give/accept meaning.

	Originally Posted by Danellian To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Regarding finding something productive to do with your time, I find your philosophy to be impractical because there are no real conclusions about how we need to live our lives, only hypotheses. I don't view ethical reliablism as practical, but rather, a rationale to not have to live up to a higher standard.

I think like all creatures, the first thing we should do survive. That's it.
Actually well not quite, humans got awfully good at that, such that they got bored.
Now if you're bored you can do something else , but you always do the first thing, survive. If people are really bored and surviving or looking for a way to survive better they create civilization. Perhaps if we're bored beyond a certain threshold of boredom we talk about this.

	Originally Posted by terencec To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think to study science, one should not prefer God exists to God does not exist. He/she should be open mind.

Agreed, bias only damages the search for the truth.

	Originally Posted by arnsworth1026 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	explain to me how information may develop randomly, on its own

It doesn't; humans interpret it as information

[Antares]

	Originally Posted by Oica To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Don't know if anyone has asked yet but... If evolution is true, and the formation of the universe is how science dictates... If science is 100% right... Why couldnt God have facilitated it?

God could have, but then so could the IPU.

	Originally Posted by 1OFMANY To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why do people care so much how God made us? I care more about why.

I don't care how or why he made us. I don't care why we exist, only how we exist, but, in reality, even that is unimportant to me, because it wouldn't matter to my future whether I was created or evolved from apes. As for the meaning of our existence, to me, doesn't exist; only how we see it.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by arnsworth1026 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	that still only explains the physical structure of DNA. not where the coding came from. the symbols don't mean anything in and of themselves until they are given meaning by an outside influence.

You're right, except that protiens don't have to be interpreted like a language does.

Protiens bond with other protiens and they fold into predictable shapes, start off with the same protiens, build them up in the same order, you will get the same shape. That means that if you have a string of specific chemicals tied together they can create the same protien over and over again automatically, simply by exposing one to the other.

That is how the "information" in DNA is translated into physical structures. Everything else in the body operates the same way. When a particular chemical is exposed to another chemical, they react in exatly the same way every time. So, if you start with DNA, a "signal" can be sent through the body and something physical will change, but it's all automatic. That is why the body is so complicated, because it is a balancing act between automatic processes. If you insert a new chemical you can't avoid side-effects because just its presence is enough to alter nearby systems in unexpected ways.

By way of example, have you ever whacked your knee on a table and had pain shoot up your leg? That is because you managed to hit a main nerve directly. The nerve is supposed to signal the brain when the body suffers damage, but it is an automatic process. If you just tap the nerve you send a signal shooting up it that the nerve wasn't supposed to generate. Therefore, you feel pain that is much greater then the damage suffered by your body. The reverse can also happen if you're cut with a sharp enough knife. You won't feel it because it happens so fast & smoothly that the nerve doesn't register a change, so it doesn't send a signal.

So, DNA arose naturally because evolution needed a way to record solutions to problems. As long as the physical structure of the organism is based on DNA the species can respond to environmental pressure over time. If the organism has no particular basis for its structure the species will never be able to remember which structures work better then others. Therefore, things that don't have DNA (or RNA) barely exist because they have no way of adapting. DNA is an evolutionary advantage which arose natuarlly.