A similar argument to yours is "Look at how complex all of existence is. How is it possible that it can exist without divine intervention?"

The problem with this argument is that it only focuses on our current situation and not the process that led to it. An example would be the Apache helicopter. Without looking at all the developments that led to the creation of all the sytems of the Apache, some sketchings from Leonardo DeVinci, the use of gunpowder by the feudal Chinese, Bernoulli's principle, the development of sonar and more recently radar, the combustion of liquid fuel (not to mention all the mechanics of the engine itself), the use of plastic components derived from oil, and so on, one might conclude that the Apache was developed by an force far greater than any corporeal source could summon.

The complexity of life is parallel to this. It's easy to look at the high levels of intelligence and power that humans have and say that we couldn't have developed without outside aid. All I say is, why not?

• Both helicopter and life work on well known principles. - alexander - June 28, 2001 - 18:35 UTC
• Point taken but helicopter was designed - highvoltage - June 28, 2001 - 20:57 UTC
  • How can anyone "design" life if evolution goes itself? - alexander - June 28, 2001 - 21:15 UTC
    • ... - highvoltage - July 1, 2001 - 23:42 UTC
      • Telescopes look back in time - yanniru - July 2, 2001 - 16:03 UTC
        • Moreover, no DIFFERENCE in physics laws now and then was found. - alexander - July 3, 2001 - 01:24 UTC
          • Beg to differ-300,000yrs- not seconds - yanniru - July 3, 2001 - 11:31 UTC
            • Relic neutrino background comes from much earlierlier time. - alexander - July 3, 2001 - 19:59 UTC
    • An analogy - harvey1 - July 2, 2001 - 21:49 UTC
      • Correction - harvey1 - July 2, 2001 - 21:51 UTC
        • Computer simulations show this pattern without new physics/math. - alexander - July 3, 2001 - 19:41 UTC
          • Remember, it's an analogy - harvey1 - July 3, 2001 - 21:55 UTC