Verified answer

We can build bridges, they are man made. They exist within this world due to the ingenuity of man/woman. We don't control what happens in life when that occurrence is out of our control. Is it logical to think that a bridge can be built without materials? That a man in the sky created himself and this world and everything in it out of nothing?

That doesn't sound logical to me.

Sigh. So many problems here.

First, most things we build don't have an "end date" -- they simply wear our eventually.

Second, you know that a bridge had a designer because of EVIDENCE that bridges are designed by humans -- you can go find the blueprints/designs, you can see people designing them, you can see people building them. There is EVIDENCE that people design and build bridges -- there is no evidence a magical god designed or built anything.

Tell you what: take the famous example of this argument from incredulity and ignorance, a watch; if you could take it back in time 3,000 years, and show it to people there, what do you think they'd say?

Since they've never seen a human design or build a watch, they don't have the evidence that you do about how watches are designed or built, they are ignorant. Want to bet real money that they would assume that such a wondrous thing (to them) was the product of some supernatural god? Most probably would. Yet you KNOW it's not.

My point is that when humans are ignorant of how something came to be, some of them assume (without evidence) that a supernatural god did it. Just like with our watch going back in time, that's not a valid assumption. If you don't know how something came to be, then you DON'T KNOW -- you don't know a supernatural god made it any more than you know a person made it. If you replace "I don't know" with "god did it," you're making a ridiculous and worthless assumption to replace your ignorance, that's all.

Finally, there are no cities inside cells. There are structures made mostly of organic chemicals, all of which can be explained by evolution by natural selection.

It's never "logical" to assume something when the answer really is that you don't know. That's a logical fallacy, and you're committing it.

Peace.

Transport systems, building complexes and computers ARE NOT 'complex systems'.

Religiotards seem to think that 'complexity' is just a less cumbersome way of saying 'complicatedness'... but you guys have missed the boat entirely. Here's a clue: In this context, the opposite of 'complicated' is 'simple'; the opposite of 'complex' is 'independent'.

Scientists (or, do you mean 'atheists'?... I notice that you cannot tell the two apart) DO NOT say (or 'believe) that "everything that life does is random chance." The PROBLEM is that professional LFJs™ (Liars For Jesus) TELL you that scientists say (believe)(claim) such things... and YOU're too gullible to be able to tell that THEY'RE LYING.

Your question is lame and nonsensical, and it is rooted in ignorance, lies and misconceptions. The way you use the word 'logical' reveals that you don't even understand what 'logic' is.

Like many dishonest creationists, you predictably rest your argument on the false dichotomy of "Either it was random chance, or somebody did it from scratch". Then you think you can prove God by default by showing the first idea is unlikely. The reality is that most things we see in the natural world are from neither of those sources. The first cells, to use your example, are the result of over one billion years of gradual yet ACCUMULATED changes. They didn't form overnight.

Even within the artificial world, there is not necessarily "a beginning [sic] date, a [sic] end date, and a creator". Many music genres for example don't have a definitive start date or end date to their existence, nor one single originator. There was no one single person who created the English language, and no sharp line between English as we know it today, and the older Anglo-Saxon forms it came from.

Yet another problem is that you think we're supposed to believe that the "creator" is not bound by this same rule of having a begin date, end date, and a creator itself. So essentially you're asserting a rule to be true, so that you can use the same rule to establish the existence of something that goes against the rule.

It is all random chance. The DNA combintion that is you is from a random chance of which genes you got from which parent. Reproduction is an imperfect process with many errors created. Why would a designer make a system that unreliable? Why would mutations occur at all? Most are neutral but many are negative leading to no offspring or diminished ability offspring. What kind of designer would design a process with so many horrifying possible errors?

Nature needs no creator, and it's illogical to assume a necessity where none exists.

Or perhaps you are fine with insinuations of a supposedly perfect deity that created mankind with the purpose of the majority going to eternal torment because of the deity's vanity? True free will required knowledge and ability, neither of which were given to mankind. With the creation of a deterministic species, intent for the creation to sin is unavoidable.

Okay, show me the design in a cell, and you'll have proven there's a designer.

It is NOT enough to show me complexity, until such time as you can properly explain kolmogorov complexity to me (because a cell actually has very LOW Kolmogorov complexity).

thats because you are looking at the issue through emotion and using arguements from complexity instead of using logic itself. The answer is yes--is quite logical that local ordering occurs if there is an energy source--actually not only likely but highly probable.

everything that happens in lif is a result of what we as humans do...for every action there is an equal and oposite recation...we choose not to go to an interview and we dont get a job...the action to not go to the interview caused a reaction of not getting a job...things dont just happen for a reason...the reason things happen is because the actions we take determine the reactions

Then I suggest you learn about the theory of evolution, the process of natural selection, and statistical thermodynamics