NationStates Jolt Archive

to believe in evolution is saying that we are just random equations, a spec in the universe. evolution gives no meaning to life so no evolutionist can tell me not to kill a man because life is nothing but chance.

Not necessarily. Some people believe both in God and evolution. Something to the effect of God setting the big bang into motion, followed by evolution.

Believing in stuff because it makes you happy is definently the right way to go. Yeah. [/sarcasm]

to believe in evolution is saying that we are just random equations, a spec in the universe. evolution gives no meaning to life so no evolutionist can tell me not to kill a man because life is nothing but chance.

actually, evolution is quite elegant and beautiful. a lot more so than the particularly boring and mutually contradictory creation myths that our culture adopted.

http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evorealx.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

I take it that you mean evolution in the sense that we came from monkies? which is not what evolution is about...

Although there are enough other univers(i?) to make random chance plausable. I don't let it get too depressing. I just look at it in the light that even if we are just a random chance, human have been able to define what they want. So, look for life here and don't focus on the "I'm a random chance thing"

Lampshades...what are you talking about? Ok, I know it was sarcastic but what did that mean?

Not so.

Firstly, evolution describes the process by which living organisms change over the generations, social, mental and physical evolution. It occurs, especially in humans, and can be seen on only a few generations of change. To deny it is folly.

To say that evolution is random chance however shows an ignorance of the theory, common among many. Evolution has at least the appearance of guidance.

Whatever you believe regarding the guiding force of evolution, be that some "mother nature" figure, "Survival of the Fittest" selection, God, Allah or some other mechanism, it is certainly not random.

Since evolution does not exclude God, merely describing the mechanism which He uses, then murder is still a sin.

If evolution is controlled by a survival of the fittest mechanism, then we as sentient beings can rise above it and apply our own morality and applying our own meaning to life; we don't kill because we our selves do not wish to be killed.

I therefore deem your statements stupid.

If you want really depressing science, look up the selfish gene theory.

to believe in evolution is saying that we are just random equations, a spec in the universe. evolution gives no meaning to life so no evolutionist can tell me not to kill a man because life is nothing but chance.

Last I checked Evolution was a theory to explain the origin of species, not provide a moral framework to live your life.

An 'evolutionist' who was also a humanist would tell you that increasing the amount of suffering in the world needlessly is immoral, so it's immoral to end a human life. An 'evolutionist' who was a Christian would tell you that ending a human life is immoral because God forbids murder.

You might as well claim mathamatics or gravity are immoral because they don't include commands not to kill your fellow man.

In any case, you seem to imply that without any overall 'purpose' or grand over-arching design, there is little point to existence and therefore there is little point to life, which depresses you. Do you really need life to have a meaning to be able justify the meaning that you have found in your own life? C'mon, there is no 'meaning of life', now go out and live.

mathamatics or gravity are immoral because they don't include commands not to kill your fellow man.

you're right! and not only do they not forbid it, they actually make it easier! gravity allows us to drop heavy objects on people, and mathmatics allows us to shoot a moving target.

ban the immoral teaching of gravity!

math is sin!

math is sin!

Hey... let's do some chain multiplication.

Not so.

Firstly, evolution describes the process by which living organisms change over the generations, social, mental and physical evolution. It occurs, especially in humans, and can be seen on only a few generations of change. To deny it is folly.

To say that evolution is random chance however shows an ignorance of the theory, common among many. Evolution has at least the appearance of guidance.

Whatever you believe regarding the guiding force of evolution, be that some "mother nature" figure, "Survival of the Fittest" selection, God, Allah or some other mechanism, it is certainly not random.

Since evolution does not exclude God, merely describing the mechanism which He uses, then murder is still a sin.

If evolution is controlled by a survival of the fittest mechanism, then we as sentient beings can rise above it and apply our own morality and applying our own meaning to life; we don't kill because we our selves do not wish to be killed.

I therefore deem your statements stupid.

Evolution is all random. it's not even a force, it's just an arbitrairy name we gave to an abstract mechanisme. evolution is just about random mutations and selection. It has no meaning, no purpose, no goal and will never stop.

I myself just don't think life has a meaning and i don't think life should have a meaning to be worth living.

now for the starter of the post:
Morality does not require life to have a meaning. It's not because our lives are meaningless that we don't enjoy living. Man is known to feel empathy to some extend and as we all don't want to die (or at least the majority of the people), we will punish someone for killing another human being as that other might have been us. We also need order in society. If, let's say, thousands of people get fired every day for no reason at all, everyone will feel insecure and unhappy because they wont know if they'll be living on the streets six months later. If property rights are not protected, how can you build a future then? People need security and order on all fronts in order to live happely and anything they can think of that will disrupt this order is therefore viewed as bad.

Hey... let's do some chain multiplication.

an unbeliever! persecute! kill the heretic!

Evolution is all random. it's not even a force, it's just an arbitrairy name we gave to an abstract mechanisme. evolution is just about random mutations and selection. It has no meaning, no purpose, no goal and will never stop.

Not completely random, because chemical reactions aren't random.

Not completely random, because chemical reactions aren't random.

but to us it is random as predicting mutations would require us to know every molecule in a persons body and the nature of any incomming radiations.

I personally believe that God/buddha/nameless force started the whole thing, and perhaps, is still causing us to evolve, but either way, God/buddha/nameless force, is/was either essentially a scientist who is still nudging us along, or is running an experiment and is letting it flow in its on direction (and if thats the case, then we arent doing very well).

Evolution is all random. it's not even a force, it's just an arbitrairy name we gave to an abstract mechanisme. evolution is just about random mutations and selection. It has no meaning, no purpose, no goal and will never stop.


Not so. Starting from Darwin’s "Origin of Species", the key study looks at the evolution of finches in a competition free environment. The finches speciate (evolve) into several varieties to fill the ecological niches in the food chain. Some learn to eat nuts, some insects and some berries, so that all the food sources are used and the maximum finch population for the island can be achieved.

At no point is a finch born who is pink. Nor is there an abundance of finches with thumbs. No finch grows screwdrivers in place of wings. Such things would be random; the evolution of the finch is not random, but directed to fill ecological niches.

Not so. Starting from Darwin’s "Origin of Species", the key study looks at the evolution of finches in a competition free environment. The finches speciate (evolve) into several varieties to fill the ecological niches in the food chain. Some learn to eat nuts, some insects and some berries, so that all the food sources are used and the maximum finch population for the island can be achieved.

At no point is a finch born who is pink. Nor is there an abundance of finches with thumbs. No finch grows screwdrivers in place of wings. Such things would be random; the evolution of the finch is not random, but directed to fill ecological niches.

evolution itself is random and has not goal, no direction. But as a result of evolution, the species that evolves will addept itself to the enviroment as being addepted to the enviroment gives those that are addepted an advantage in the selection mechanisme. Evolution did not direct the finch to fill ecological niches, but because they evolved the finches just got more addapted at filling those niches.

It's a subtle but fundamental difference in meaning.

actually, evolution is quite elegant and beautiful. a lot more so than the particularly boring and mutually contradictory creation myths that our culture adopted.Amen brother! Evolution Rocks! It is a force that transcends time and generations. It permeates our lives, our society and our world. We ignore and dismiss it, but it is everywhere. The most wonderous thing about it is it is happening right now, beneath your very nose. Many think of evolution as the path that got us here, nievely assuming that the end of the journey is here, that we are the culmination of evolution. In fact we are just another step in the continuous progression. Life is not meaningless, every link in a chain is important. Wake up and evolve! Make the most of your contribution to evolution. It goes beyond the form of the species you know. Our society, our ecosystem, our world, all are evolving. Put a little thought in to how you'd like that evolution to progress and do what you can to make it happen. That's one of the nifty little things that evolution has bestowed upon mankind, the ability to shape their world and effect it's evolution. Make the most of it.

to believe in evolution is saying that we are just random equations, a spec in the universe. evolution gives no meaning to life so no evolutionist can tell me not to kill a man because life is nothing but chance.

To believe in creation is saying that we are just drones on pre-set paths, our every desicion made for us, creation gives no meaning to life so no creationist can tell me not to kill a man because it may just be god's will.

Well? I've inverted your argument. Now what do you think? Does this new argument sound as silly to you as yours did to me?

Find your own meaning in life. Try not to dogmatically assume that one "Set" of rules is inherantly better than another "Set". Study, think, observe, discuss, study.

Evolution is just the random mutation in a gene that makes an organsim more suited to its enviroment and so can survive long enough to pass on its genes to its offspring, while those without the mutation die of.

But Mankind kinda fecked it, now evolution does not exist we cater for all of inferiorities in unnatural ways and so all those people who would of died due to lack of a certain gene that may of maintained there survival, now survive anyway through the strong helping the weak.

So think what you want, but to me evolution within nature is good, but nature does not exist within mankind. We've evolved past evolution.

Evolution is just the random mutation in a gene that makes an organsim more suited to its enviroment and so can survive long enough to pass on its genes to its offspring, while those without the mutation die of.

But Mankind kinda fecked it, now evolution does not exist we cater for all of inferiorities in unnatural ways and so all those people who would of died due to lack of a certain gene that may of maintained there survival, now survive anyway through the strong helping the weak.

So think what you want, but to me evolution within nature is good, but nature does not exist within mankind. We've evolved past evolution.

Then how do you account for the fact that the average height is far greater than 100 years ago, or the progressive increases in average IQ?

And for God's sake, EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM!

to believe in evolution is saying that we are just random equations, a spec in the universe. evolution gives no meaning to life so no evolutionist can tell me not to kill a man because life is nothing but chance.
Evolution states that every species is eventually better than the previous one. Therefore, you are the best thing on the whole planet, since ever. Depressing? No way.

Evolution states that every species is eventually better than the previous one. Therefore, you are the best thing on the whole planet, since ever. Depressing? No way.

Better with regard to it's environment, but 'success' is actually measured in biomass. Therefore, nematode worms are the most successful lifeform on Earth. If you could remove from the world somehow every bit of matter that wasn't a nematode worm, the whole world and everything in it would still be visible in perfect outline. No matter how clean you are or how often you wash, you are covered in worms.

evolution itself is random and has not goal, no direction. But as a result of evolution, the species that evolves will addept itself to the enviroment as being addepted to the enviroment gives those that are addepted an advantage in the selection mechanisme. Evolution did not direct the finch to fill ecological niches, but because they evolved the finches just got more addapted at filling those niches.

It's a subtle but fundamental difference in meaning.

Talking of subtle but fundamental differences, please not that "adapt" and "adept" are different. Also, "addept" and "addapt" are not real words. I mention it only becuse your post is difficult to read.

If you believe in the Darwinist form of evolution, that's fine; in which case you believe in a random evolution. It is possible to believe however that the world is changed by evolution. Evolution is not itself a guiding force, but is the mechanism by which a force guides us (you see the subtle but fundamental difference?)

to believe in evolution is saying that we are just random equations, a spec in the universe. evolution gives no meaning to life so no evolutionist can tell me not to kill a man because life is nothing but chance.

assume evolution is how we got to what we are now
assume that evolution is random (I know there are plenty of people posting here who will argue against this, but it's not important for the moment)

You're saying that humanity is essentially the product of random chance and that this means that humanity is meaningless. This doesnt necessarily follow.

What gives your life meaning is your life, not really how your life came about. You can find meaning in anything positive that you (or humanity in general has achieved) Life doesnt have a meaning, it gets given meaning by creative and intelligent, self-reflective human minds (which are an amazing thing in themselves, even if the product of chance)

as to evolutionists being unable to tell you not to kill, that doesnt follow either. They could quite easily tell you not to, but they wouldnt be doing so from their position as an 'evolutionist' which as far as I can tell, doesnt really generate moral principles. They would be telling you not to based on other sources or morality, which are perfectly compatible with a belief in evolutionary theories.

Evolution isn't depressing and is in fact liberating and inspiring. Try reading something by the philosopher Daniel Dennett to see why. (you'll need to join the link back up)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140283897/qid=1092739195/
sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/202-4339904-9427866

Evolution does not preclude life having a purpose. You don't even have to believe in God(s) for that. Rajneesh (an atheist, BTW) used to say the purpose of life is to "leave the world better than it was when you entered it".

Then how do you account for the fact that the average height is far greater than 100 years ago, or the progressive increases in average IQ?

And for God's sake, EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM!

average height: better circumstances. If a child has a lack of food, it will grow less.

IQ: education. children from this day are used to solving riddles and doing maths, reading. a child from 10 now is more trained in the skills that will help someone in an IQ test than a child from 10 a century ago.

Talking of subtle but fundamental differences, please not that "adapt" and "adept" are different. Also, "addept" and "addapt" are not real words. I mention it only becuse your post is difficult to read.

If you believe in the Darwinist form of evolution, that's fine; in which case you believe in a random evolution. It is possible to believe however that the world is changed by evolution. Evolution is not itself a guiding force, but is the mechanism by which a force guides us (you see the subtle but fundamental difference?)

sorry about the spelling. I didn't even notice the "e".

And i indeed see the difference and as it is fundamental i'm not going to say much about it. as an atheist the concept of a force guiding us is not exactly acceptable.

I dont find the thought of 'random' evolution depressing at all. The very fact that we exist shows that the universe strives TOWARDS life rather than just us existing by chance.
Look how pervasive and difficult to destroy life is.
If there were a nuclear war tommorrow sure all the higher life forms would die and so would most of the bacteria etc but somewhere some woudl survive and a couple of million years later, BAM! We've got a whole bunch of new species hanging around, getting better at what they do and it would only be a matter of time before something as smart as we are comes along.
Intelligence itself is an ecological niche that we happen to fill.

to believe in evolution is saying that we are just random equations, a spec in the universe. evolution gives no meaning to life so no evolutionist can tell me not to kill a man because life is nothing but chance.
Ok, you're stupid. Go learn what evolution is, rather than spouting bullshit.

to believe in evolution is saying that we are just random equations, a spec in the universe. evolution gives no meaning to life so no evolutionist can tell me not to kill a man because life is nothing but chance.
on the contrary, evolution states that life is absolutely not chance; evolutionary theory states that life will develop in ONLY the most efficient and effective way based on conditions present, so life could ONLY exist in the form it does based on the conditions that were present when it developed.

evolution tells us that we are all exactly as we should be, that all the random occurances that shaped our world did not prevent life from finding paths to continue and thrive. the way those random occurances came together left only one best solution for our form of life; humans could not have developed any other way, because if there were a more energetically efficient solution then THAT would have survived instead of humans as we know them.

rather than us all being created by one diety, we are instead each shaped by the laws of the universe. the fabric of reality itself necessitated our existence, since the human form was the most energetically efficient result of the conditions on this planet where we evolved. we could not be other than we are unless these universal laws were changed.

evolution tells us that we shape and are shaped by the reality around us. rather than being created once, thousands or millions of years ago, we are constantly created, individually, throughout our existence and the existence of our species. the forces that make us are not doing so because they "want" to, they are doing so because we are the only right answer for this particular solution.

i'd say that's a whole lot less depressing than the idea that some force we can never understand decided (for reasons we will never know) to create us way back in the day.

Evolution states that every species is eventually better than the previous one.

...Actually, no, it doesn't. This USED to be a conclusion drawn by biologists after studying the theory, but these days, the question of whether a species is "better" or "worse" simply doesn't enter into it.

This is partly because whether we are "better" or "worse" depends on so many factors. We may be a highly developed species, but we are very poorly suited to being underwater for extended periods of time. So, since 2/3 of the earth's surface is covered in water, can we really say that we, the species that requires special equipment just to function in that environment for just a few hours, are "better" than fish, who are born to function in that environment their whole lives?

sorry about the spelling. I didn't even notice the "e".

And i indeed see the difference and as it is fundamental i'm not going to say much about it. as an atheist the concept of a force guiding us is not exactly acceptable.


Fair play, we shall agree to disagree on what is in practice a minor point.

Now, to unite and stamp out this creationist rubbish!

...Actually, no, it doesn't. This USED to be a conclusion drawn by biologists after studying the theory, but these days, the question of whether a species is "better" or "worse" simply doesn't enter into it.

This is partly because whether we are "better" or "worse" depends on so many factors. We may be a highly developed species, but we are very poorly suited to being underwater for extended periods of time. So, since 2/3 of the earth's surface is covered in water, can we really say that we, the species that requires special equipment just to function in that environment for just a few hours, are "better" than fish, who are born to function in that environment their whole lives?
Point taken. If I were to rephrase that, I would say...er...'best at achieving what we do'. Hmm. Not a great description there.
But I would say that humans WERE the 'best' species. Through our advanced mental abilites, we compensate for what becoming an 'all-rounder' has done to us; SCUBA gear when diving, vehicles for going fast, high, etc. and clothes for suiting ourselves to hostile climates. Through some animals are better than us at some things (cheetahs can run fast), they can't beat us at all things (cheetahs can't build a jet engine). This ability to think up new ways of achieving things we cannot do now makes us, in my opinion, the 'best' species.

Point taken. If I were to rephrase that, I would say...er...'best at achieving what we do'. Hmm. Not a great description there.

But I would say that humans WERE the 'best' species. Through our advanced mental abilites, we compensate for what becoming an 'all-rounder' has done to us; SCUBA gear when diving, vehicles for going fast, high, etc. and clothes for suiting ourselves to hostile climates.


Yes, but my point is that that "best" is always going to have to be qualified by a "best AT" something.


Through some animals are better than us at some things (cheetahs can run fast), they can't beat us at all things (cheetahs can't build a jet engine). This ability to think up new ways of achieving things we cannot do now makes us, in my opinion, the 'best' species.

But, again, animals can't beat us at all things, but neither can we beat all animals at all things either. You could even turn the "we have the ability to think up new ways to do things" argument on its head and say that we are evolutionarily flawed precisely BECAUSE we need to do this, whilst other animals are evolutionarily superiour because they were BORN with the fins, gills, fur, or whatnot.

I think my further point is that "best" implies a competition with a SINGLE standard of success, and there ISN'T a single standard -- except for whether your species continues to exist. And as there are a squillion species, all with a staggeringly huge array of different means for continuing to exist, the whole notion of one single species being superior overall kind of falls apart, to me.

Denying that evolution exists and works in todays world is folly. The theory just works. You can contact me under my name United Christiandom if you don't agree with me there.

Anyway, it is a question of whether evolution or creationism is the way that life came to this earth. I am personally a fan of creationism, as I feel that many people try to limit God in this world, and as God truly has no limits, why not believe Him when He tells us that He created the world in seven days?

However, on the other side, I was an evolutionist for nearly 17 years of my life, and wanted to be paleontologist from the time I was 2 until I was 12, and futher studied evolution until age 16. From a point of view, it is plausable and it is reasonable. No human was there to see it happen though, so I'm going with the testimony of a Dude who was.

Anything can be beautiful, unique and incredible, be it the awe that God has made us, or that we stand upon 10,000,000 corpses that had to exist before the final product, us.

Disagree with me on either of those viewpoints? Contact me as United Christiandom.

-Fury

to believe in evolution is saying that we are just random equations, a spec in the universe. evolution gives no meaning to life so no evolutionist can tell me not to kill a man because life is nothing but chance.

I think evolution is about the most inspiring thing there could be.
Think about it; life has fought against all the odds to be in the position it is today.
Noone put it there, it had to put itself there and as such may never occur again, whereas God could recreate it time and time again.
Evolution makes life more sacred, not less.

evolution itself is random and has not goal, no direction. But as a result of evolution, the species that evolves will addept itself to the enviroment as being addepted to the enviroment gives those that are addepted an advantage in the selection mechanisme. Evolution did not direct the finch to fill ecological niches, but because they evolved the finches just got more addapted at filling those niches.

It's a subtle but fundamental difference in meaning.

No Mutation is random … evolution always is a force towards solution. The evolutionary theory includes the propagation of beneficiary traits.

average height: better circumstances. If a child has a lack of food, it will grow less.

IQ: education. children from this day are used to solving riddles and doing maths, reading. a child from 10 now is more trained in the skills that will help someone in an IQ test than a child from 10 a century ago.


And those are great example of directional evolutionism (the directional really is not necessary but I wanted to differentiate between your idea of random and the normal theory of evolution)

Height
More food … better surroundings yes … exactly
Perfect example of what happens when deterministic pressures are removed (evolution works through the fact that traits will make a survival or attractive difference in the species) not necessarily so as you can see … if the factor is not detrimental to them (well at least past breeding age) then it will spread. There were pressures holding back excessive height (such as food requirement)

And Iq … Being smart propagates you in life
Is a benefit defiantly


Can be summed up by the definition
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
The process of developing.
Gradual development.
Biology.
Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

If you want really depressing science, look up the selfish gene theory.

BURN IN HELL, RICHARD DAWKINS!!!!

I don't really mean that, of course, but should he get a nasty sunburn I would be hard pressed to feel bad for him.

to believe in evolution is saying that we are just random equations, a spec in the universe. evolution gives no meaning to life so no evolutionist can tell me not to kill a man because life is nothing but chance.

I think evolution is PROOF that there is a "divine consciousness" guiding the universe. I am really sleepy this morning and do not feel like writing out my case, but I'll give it a shot with some brevity.

hmmm complicated to present (perhaps questions will state my case): Where does consciousness come from? How did the first single cell organism get consciousness? What are the chances of a bunch of random elements coming together and all of a sudden being "alive" allowing it to grow from there? Knowing that it needed to split itself? Knowing HOW to split itself?

Okay then it forms more complex organisms. How does it know what to form into, and how to organize itself to become these things? How does it judge from it's surroundings what it needs to evolve into? Where does this simple life form get its creativity? It must be pretty complex. How often do you see extreemely complex organizations randomly appearing before your eyes?

After a while you get an extreemely diverse plant animal and insect life that all live off of each other and somehow work perfectly together.

In conclusion: if randomness could create something as complex and mystifying as the human body, then why cant man with his supposed superior intelligence create a life form (or even artificial life with artificial intelligence) on purpose that is able to go out into the world and live on its own and evolve into something more?

We have seen that with the right elements and environment and some energy that life will start on it's own almost everytime. This universe is made to create and support life.

Sorry if I am incoherent. *yawn* But that is what I think. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Excellant another site with an evo/creationist debate :sniper: :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: what a waste of time!

BURN IN HELL, RICHARD DAWKINS!!!!

I don't really mean that, of course, but should he get a nasty sunburn I would be hard pressed to feel bad for him.
Idiot book-burner. It was people like you who put Galileo under house arrest.

to believe in evolution is saying that we are just random equations, a spec in the universe. evolution gives no meaning to life so no evolutionist can tell me not to kill a man because life is nothing but chance.

Oh no! Science is depressing! Looks like it's disproven then!

I think my further point is that "best" implies a competition with a SINGLE standard of success, and there ISN'T a single standard -- except for whether your species continues to exist. And as there are a squillion species, all with a staggeringly huge array of different means for continuing to exist, the whole notion of one single species being superior overall kind of falls apart, to me.
I agree totally.

Idiot book-burner. It was people like you who put Galileo under house arrest.

Oh dry up. I own copies of most of Dawkin's work, from Selfish Gene through Out of Eden. I wasn't advocating burning his books, but way to jump to a conclusion.

to believe in evolution is saying that we are just random equations, a spec in the universe. evolution gives no meaning to life so no evolutionist can tell me not to kill a man because life is nothing but chance.

Actually, IMO, believing in a universe without the divine which is simply science and nothing more should make it worse to kill a human being. At least if Christianity, say, or some other religion with an afterlife, is right, then you actually obliterating that person from existence. You're simply pushing them to the next stage of their existence. However, if the only consciousness, the only conscience, and the only intelligence in the universe is that which evolves from nothing, and there is no afterlife, then when you kill a human being A) you actually obliterate their existence, and B) you're extinguishing one more of a finite number of sparks of intelligence in an otherwise mindless universe.

I know that that isn't quite to do with evolution vs. creationism, rather it's divine vs atheism, but I'm really arguing against New Spartacus' idea that you need a deity to tell you that murder is wrong.

please note though that I am not an atheist, I'm an agnostic, although I believe it to be very unlikely that there is a theistic deity

I think evolution is PROOF that there is a "divine consciousness" guiding the universe. I am really sleepy this morning and do not feel like writing out my case, but I'll give it a shot with some brevity.

hmmm complicated to present (perhaps questions will state my case): Where does consciousness come from? How did the first single cell organism get consciousness? What are the chances of a bunch of random elements coming together and all of a sudden being "alive" allowing it to grow from there? Knowing that it needed to split itself? Knowing HOW to split itself?

Okay then it forms more complex organisms. How does it know what to form into, and how to organize itself to become these things? How does it judge from it's surroundings what it needs to evolve into? Where does this simple life form get its creativity? It must be pretty complex. How often do you see extreemely complex organizations randomly appearing before your eyes?

After a while you get an extreemely diverse plant animal and insect life that all live off of each other and somehow work perfectly together.

In conclusion: if randomness could create something as complex and mystifying as the human body, then why cant man with his supposed superior intelligence create a life form (or even artificial life with artificial intelligence) on purpose that is able to go out into the world and live on its own and evolve into something more?

We have seen that with the right elements and environment and some energy that life will start on it's own almost everytime. This universe is made to create and support life.

Sorry if I am incoherent. *yawn* But that is what I think. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.


hmmmmm?