So if you start with a bird and end with a bird.

Or start with a giraffe end with a giraffe.

There is no evolving into other life forms.

:lost:

back to the discussion at hand.

i just mean that they're far too low to make me believe in them.

At the stage of development where you already have existing giraffes and vultures, it stands to reason that there would be other avian life-forms. It's more reasonable in the situation you proposed that Vultures evolved from a pre-existing life form that was already avian.


The ''bird-like creature'' that I typed in the first para probably evolved from something that was less birdlike that evolved from something that was even less birdlike and you go back the chain until you get something that wasn't birdlike at all. That's the simplest I can put it...adaptations to environment over time + natural selection + mutations in genetic code = result in organisms that eventually don't resemble their base at all. That's evolution anyway.

Yes the chances are low, but there are infinitely more universes, or galaxies out there that may have had the big bang. And maybe for our galaxy the chances worked out.

Jik, there's this saying, I don't know the exact words, but I think it's something related to the anthropic principle. It goes something like, "If there is a closet in which there are an exceedingly large number of clothes of all kinds and colours and sizes, you shouldn't be surprised to find a few that fit you.


Also, I think Hrae has a great point with the puddle example.

Manz,
When a single cell existed, it adapted to it's surroundings (as far as we know, water), and multiplied. When competition for survival in the water grew, some cells adapted to land, and eventually to air. By this time, there were probably many multi-cellular organisms, which in turn evolved into a species we recognise in their own way, based on what they needed to adapt to.

but what gave the cell life? what gave the cell the ability to adapt? what gave the cell the need to live?

We do not know that yet, but ascribing it to god does not help.


Since you have not commented on it, have you accepted the anthropic principle?

If it's unexplainable at this point, how is ascribing it to an unexplainable force make anything non-sensical? we dont know exactly what gives things the need to live; we dont understand it. so doesnt it make sense that it would be caused by something we dont understand?

No, it doesn't. Let's go back in time to when eclipses weren't understood. They weren't caused by anything "unknown". Planetary motion, formation of shadows etc. People jumped at the god/devil did it explanation, and look how wrong they were. Have some patience, trust in logic and rationality. You won't go too far wrong.

EDIT: Saying it is caused by something we don't understand ATM is one thing, but saying we can never understand it because god did it is just plain lazy.

No, im not saying we cant understand it. To me, the whole point of science is to see what God did to form everything. im not trying to write it off.