Do you believe in God?

[Frogberto]

Originally Posted by RStar

Not necessarily. Take DNA for instance. There is so much information in it in just the right order, that having it form by accident has been compared to an explosion at a printers accidentally creating a dictionary.

I'll take DNA as a great example, and you're creatively assembling two old arguments from creationists that have long ago been explained, but I'm happy to explain away once again. (Note that I fear hijacking this thread, so I'm also happy to discuss this in a separate thread if you prefer).

The very act of reproduction adds information mathematically without the need for a higher intelligence. You just mentioned the letters "DNA", without specifying which type of DNA you mean, but RNA also contains information, as do lower phenotypes such as linked protein chains. The fact that the "information" in all higher lifeforms is linked, i.e., humans share 99% of the DNA in chimpanzees, is proof of evolution, not intelligent design or a creator. And science has showed through observation that levels of information in a genome can increase by natural selection. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

* increased genetic variety in a population;
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material; and
* novel genetically-regulated abilities

Your "having it form by accident is compared to an explosion at a printers accidentally creating a dictionary" is Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747" argument. Although this claim is irrelevant to the theory of evolution itself, since evolution does not occur via assembly from individual parts, but rather via selective gradual modifications to existing structures, order can and does result from such evolutionary processes.

However, it's irresponsible for me not to point out that the general principle behind your example is wrong. Order arises spontaneously from disorder all the time. Order arises spontaneously all the time in nature - in rocks or crystals, in clouds, in boiling water, in ocean waves, etc. Something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously from raw chemicals, but there is no reason to believe that something as simple as a self-replicating molecule could not form thus. From there, evolution can, and does, produce more and more complexity.

Originally Posted by RStar

The more I learn about the human body, the more I realize there is a creator.

Does that include, also, bad design, the millions of innocent deaths of babies and children from childhood diseases, the fact that humans have a tailbone, and an appendix, whales have leg and foot bones, the fact that our eyes are designed backwards, and the fact that standing on two legs gives humans backaches? You have to learn about both the bad and the good in the design of the human body before you make a decision, no?

Originally Posted by RStar

The creation of the universe will never be explained because we cannot prove it. Which is why we cling to beliefs, including the Big Bang.

I think that you're confused as to the scientific definition of "theory", but we can certainly prove the creation of the universe - in fact, that is one of the areas of science where proof is overwhelming, and contrary to your statement, the big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

* Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.

* The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.

* The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

* The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.

* The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

* The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.

Originally Posted by RStar

To my knowledge they have not yet found a "one mutation away from a chicken" dino, but I read today that they believe there are something like 70% of dinosaur species yet to be discovered. Very interesting, but do you know why the chicken crossed the road?

If you go far enough back, you'll find that all modern birds evolved from dinosaurs of a certain lineage. To be more specific than "dinosaurs", since that term encompasses such a large number of species, chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.

Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there could have only been non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.

And to answer your other question, the chicken crossed the road either to see a man lay bricks, or to see Gregory Peck. The data is still inconclusive.