To look at the food chain and think that we must have been designed in that fashion for it to work is in the same line of thought as that 'it is amazing that the earths air has just the right amount of oxygen in it for us to live and breath, any more and stuff would ignite and we would all have seizures from oxygen poisoning. Any less and we we could not function. We have evolved into what we see now. Were are lungs designed to breathe this concentrations of oxygen? or did they evolve to fit the conditions? Were Tibetan villagers designed have way more red blood cells (from birth) than any other group of humans so they can live at extreme altitudes? or did they adapt (evolve)? I think the hardest part to comprehend is the enormous amounts of time we are talking about for this 'food chain' we live in to evolve the way it has. We (homosapiens) have only been around for 1/190th of 1% of the time that life began. 99% of all species were extinct before we ever arrived. Too bad we can't ask them how well the 'food chain' works.
I have a question though. . .

If we were created, why does our bodies consist of only 10% human cells and %90 other (mostly bacteria)? Who is really at the top of the food chain? Was this the interdependency you site? Is it more plausible to assume we were created this way, or that this is a system that has survived because it works? To see the way the 'food chain' really works, it is almost impossible to imagine that it was created for humans and not that humans only managed to fit into it as so not to become a 99%er (extinct).
Do you ever wonder what the dominant species is on earth? How do you measure dominance (a human standard?)?

1. yes
2. energy fueling chemical reactions creating complex chains of molecules like amino acids which eventually became the first single celled organisms. chicken or egg? neither.
3. i like bikinjack's analogy to the economy, very accurate. proof of spontaneous order.


re: bikinjack's comment on the big bang. when i see a bolt of lightening, my reaction is not "who did that?" when i think of the big bang i don't think it implies a creator, i only think it implies certain things about the nature of the universe while begging big questions about it at the same time.

1 - I believe God created by faith.
2 - Again. [*side note - not one time, throughout the history of mankind, has mankind ever observed life come from non-living matter, or one species evolve into a completely different type of species. All suggestions of early life is 'faith based'.]
3 - And again.

I have no idea what you are referring to? We can prove many things evolved from one species to another. This is not a frog had a baby and made a bird. Evolution is over a long stretch of time. We can show some species of fish even today are evolving and growing legs that we have no history of them doing that in the past. You can't beat evolution, it is a fact. If you think it is not a fact, then you have not really studied it without your "God Goggles" on. If you are going to study it, then make sure you get a book by a real evolutionary biologist like Richard Dawkins or someone else in that specializes in that field.

I am well aware of who Richard Dawkins is.
Richard Dawkins is an intelligent man.
And he would have said 'no'.

No, we have never, throughout the history of mankind, observed one species evolve into a completely different species. Since you believe a unobserved phenomenon is a 'fact', btw Jesus rose from the grave.

... That WAS observed.

I really doubt he would say no. He may say no to "within one human's lifetime," but not to the entire process.

And BTW, even if Jesus was a real person, it is amazing that no one wrote about until well over 30 years (I would have to look up the estimated number of years to be more accurate again) later and there are not multiple references about it. Since the average lifespan of someone during that time was less than 30 years, it makes sense to just hand down the story orally until those that were the supposed witnesses were all dead. A zombie walking around would be pretty big news even for that day.

There are a hundred way to fake a person's death. It has been done hundreds of time throughout history. It did not make any of them a demi-god or immortal.

You should really go see a magic show; just because people saw something, does not make it so.

He would say no because he would understand the question, and not be threatened by the answer.

Since there is such a massive amount of more material for Jesus Christ than Socrates, then I expect you to not believe Socrates existed either.

I am not threatened by the answer. If science comes out proves evolution to be wrong, then so be it. That is what science is all about. Finding the truth. I don't understand why you don't get that. If they say the big bang was all wrong, then we start over and learn from there. Finding out the truth, that is what is important. I'm not just going to take someone's word for it. I proved that to be hogwash in one of the other posts. Discovering the truth by testing something is how we learn.

I don't know for a fact that Socrates was real or not. Why? Because I have never dug into it to find out if there is enough evidence to support that. Why? Because his books are not putting people to death or telling people where they can go, just because someone else said so. I don't care if he is real or not, because he is not harming humanity. No one is worshipping him that I know of.

And BTW, you assumed I thought he was a real person. I answer that with, I don't know.

OK, I don't blame you for not taking my word for it. So, here is a direct quote from that very intelligent man, Richard Dawkins, responding to Governor "out-of-his-mind" Perry about telling the nation that evolution is a theory.

Reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...FUYJ_blog.html