Thought I would answer RA's question but put it in the right section and make a title that is more helpful to a sensible discussion.

So first off I would put down a few priori and dispel a few false dichotomies

1. Not all Christians reject theories of evolution, big bang theory, dinosaurs etc
In fact outside of America, the vast majority of Christians do as much as non-Xtians-including the Roman Catholic Church- : "... Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence." is the official advice to parents. Anglicans are the same - in fact Darwin himself was an Anglican- and not by upbringing but by conversion as an adult.

2. Not all scientists are atheists
Only coffee table "scientists" reading Dawkins and Harris actually believe this. There is nothing mutually exclusive about the spiritual and the scientific, in fact there is much to support a spiritual AND scientific life: As Screwtape puts it
“Above all, do not attempt to use science (I mean, the real sciences) as a defence against Christianity. They will positively encourage him to think about realities he can’t touch and see. ” .

3, Atheists and Christians are offensive to each other.
I pray to God that should I go to Heaven, I wish to spend it with my atheist brother and my atheist and agnostic family and friends. Spending it with most of the other religious folk I know would feel more like the Other Place. Especially if Christian Rock is anything to go by.

4. The Whole Six Days Thing
Only fundies believe that story literally. This does not mean that I don't believe God brought the Universe into existence. In fact, I believe it goes much further than that, but it does mean that I know an allegory when I see one.

5. Some Christians believe only the literal Word of the Bible
They may say the do but more often they don't. Take the US God Squad. "America is God's Own Country!" they cry. But......It isn't. And, for obvious reasons, there is no indication of this in the Bible. So much for the Sola Scrittura literalists interpretation of the Bible over the pond. That is the thing: literal word of the Bible until it is inconvenient. Another example is that whole Rich Man getting to Heaven as easily as a Camel passing Through a Needle thang. THEN they interpret, No, there is only ONE HOLY LAND.




and that is ST Jame's Park

Makes perfect sense to me

There's money in religion in the US which is probably why its lasted longer there IMHO.
Its not even the same religion.

hey mikey, what about aliens and shit like that?

Alien gods made them, lol.

what if reversiverse?
filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm

batou wrote:
Well as it happens this has been discussed,
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7399661.stm
but of course until we meet them it is all a bit hypothetical.

In fact, with some proud-to-be-skeptics, you would probably receive the same derision whether you were to mention aliens as you had you mentioned God.

mikey mikey wrote:
'And some aliens could even be free from original sin, he speculates'

LOOOLLLL!!!! Spat out my brew laughing at that :p

I've met neither aliens nor God....I've also never met anarchism, I don't dismiss ideas easily.

andyh wrote:
Indeed. Cringe-worthy stuff. In fact, the whole issue is just a tiny bit embarrassing all round.

"So IF there's a God and IF we meet ET life then would we meet them in Heaven?"

It's not really my primary theological concern, but what the Hell..

Such an interesting subject.

Until anyone can explain the existence of DNA information in purely materialistic terms then I have to plump for some sort of creationism.

The information written onto the DNA molecule, that has to be read by molecular machines inside the cell could not have come about from some undirected process such as evolution. DNA replication is even checked so that mistakes are corrected. This checking procedure immediately makes the theory of evolution completely impossible, because it means that new genetic code can not simply appear, even when mutations happen.

My suspicion is that when people finally realise that evolution is just a fairy story the fake aliens will be wheeled out.

grackus wrote:

Care to elaborate?

psketti wrote:
All I am saying is that information can not come about solely by an unconscious, undirected process, therefore some sort of deliberate action put that information onto the DNA molecule. The amazing world of molecular machines and the incredibly complex information system of DNA on their own suggests to me that life was created; that is until someone can explain how DNA information came about without help from an intelligent being.

grackus wrote:
Circular reasoning tbh, lack of proof can be used by either for or against creationism.

I would say that looking at why man is so radically different to the apes would be a better clue than DNA.

We could for example say that there may be forms of life without DNA of any type that we would recognise to be DNA, we might not even recognise it as life by our own human perspectives.

Bear in mind that apparent complexity is itself merely a pov. A far more advanced being than humans might consider DNA to be very simple.

andyh wrote:
It can definitely be said that, in our human experience, information is created by intelligence. It can also be said that no known materialistic process can create information. This is scientific observation. Being that are far more advanced than humans, for example, are not based on scientific observation. They are based on your imagination. I know what I would rather use to draw my conclusions from.

If anyone can prove how information can arise from an unconscious, materialistic process, then I happily change my opinion.

The argument is entirely logical. DNA contains information. Information comes from a mind or intelligence. DNA is the product of a mind or intelligence. That is not arguing in a circle. It is the most logical conclusion based on the known facts. Of course you could argue that DNA does not contain information, or that information can arise from somewhere other than a mind or intelligence, but then you would need to offer some sort of explanation based on scientific observation, rather than imagining lifeforms that have no DNA, or lifeforms that are really, really complex that no-one has ever seen.

grackus wrote:
Sure, the photons arriving to us from another galaxy are data.
/shrugs.

Electronic charge, spin state and on and on and these are particles which DNA is comprised of itself so....why not mention them too?

As for my imagination of other types of life that was precisely the point I was trying to make, eg you perceive life to be ONLY based on DNA yet there is no evidence stating that this is solely the case other than here on Earth which is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the entire universe.
Only a human being would make such a daft assumption based upon such a tiny amount of data because our brains are wired to see patterns.

andyh wrote:
Photons may be "data", but they are not information. DNA is a molecule inside cells that carries informatin that instructs molecular machines how to build entire living beings. To compare DNA to photons is what I would call daft. Photons do not carry information. They are what they are. The DNA molecule uses its structure as a medium to carry information using a four character language. Photons are nothing of the sort.

grackus wrote:
A molecule is itself comprised of atoms grackus which is itself in turn comprised of sub-atomic particles.

Have you heard of the holographic universe theory?

andyh wrote:
That does not explain how information came to be written on the DNA molecule. A photon, other molecules or sub-atomic particles do not contain written information on them so far as science understands. From scientific observation only DNA can be said to carry information. The result of this information being read by specific molecular machines inside the cell is all life on this planet. Information does not reside on a photon as you assert.

grackus wrote:
You never heard of fibre optics? lol