David f,
Symbiosis occurs between man and the bacteria in his large intestine, but an important question is why does symbiosis occur, or why do organisms want to live anyway?

An interesting question, if mankind is about to start creating synthetic lifeforms (but of course creating synthetic lifeforms is not ID)

Vanna,

What is Man or "human" is not straight forward. Only ten percent of cells in our bodies are distinctly human (Jones). We are colony. Viruses will adjust the likelihood of killing their hosts based on the probability of spreading to other colonies (other humans). Viruses are just a means to an end for a gene. Humans are just organic islands. Bacteria live on the island. Organisms don't choose to be born neither bacteria nor you nor me. Organisms living or dying is inconsequential to the universe. Living is a means to create the potential to pass on genes, a specific bacterium, bacteria or an animal (organic colony).

Yes, I am aware of all that Oliver. As I mentioned in a previous post, it may be theoretically possible for life forms to be based on something other than carbon, and the inorganic or organic structure of the organism is simply a means to carry life (or a life force).

Regards energy, matter and energy are inter-convertible (if not, then how does power actually come out of a nuclear reactor), but there can also be antimatter.

Combining together all, there was once nothing.

So why did nothing eventually create life, or why did life eventually come from nothing?

Not quite answered by the theory of evolution, (despite all the rhetoric).

vannakins: << Evolution is normally defined as a genetic change (and a genetic change only) that enables a species to better survive and reproduce in its environment. >>

Wrong yet again. You're talking about genetic adaptation and natural selection, not evolution.

<< ...why does symbiosis occur, or why do organisms want to live anyway? >>

Symbiosis occurs because organisms have evolved to be co-dependent on others for survival and/or reproduction. Most organisms don't "want" anything, they either survive or die.

<< So why did nothing eventually create life, or why did life eventually come from nothing? >>

The theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't purport to answer why, but it explains how very well indeed - far more so than the idiotic drivel propounded by Creationists, including the ID ignoramuses.

You clearly don't understand evolution or what is referred to by the disingenuous term "intelligent design". [Deleted for flaming.]

oliver..<<The levels of energy..OUG and I are citing are many,..many times greater than atoms switching electrons.>>...

this is deceptive...were stil talking about a theory

1 gram/..THEORETICLY contains..plenty of energy...
BUT IN THEORY ONLY

science cant recover it..one gram of toenail clippings..would barely light a light bulb..but such is the REAL PROBLEM..with theory...some think its fact..

in keeping it simple...i feel your thinking..i validate it...
i dont...weight depends on the atoms covelance bonds with protons/neutrons...etc...

[but science cant even explain..what an atom is clearly...
let alone recover the POTENTIAL energy..of the protons/neutrons..captured by it

in theory its simple..add in one extra/pair...and you got gold..
but that cant happen..let alone the reverse...lol..lead is lead/gold is gold..learn to live within the limits god set

yet the faulse/god-heads...of science..con the conned/decieved/awe=struck
..just give us a bigger cyclotron...lol..
maybe then we can get out more ..'energy'..than we put in...

its a joke

so too..is you asking me...what runner thinks...
i wouldnt presume..[nor be expected to know...
just like/..i can only go/..by what you say..not what you think..

we all have thought out reasons..for saying into word...anything..we chose to reveal

but any/..honest person...will confess to changing their belief..
according to the facts..that best suit our own personal ex-peer-iences

it shouldnt matter...what others think...no-one has any right to force reply..to what after-all..is not relivant to anything...only..yet more/destraction..in lue of fact

the bible stands alone...[science says big/bang...bible says..let there be light
science says..two bodies..brushed briefly together/then bang
bible says there is a heaven...there is a hell

science says lucy..the first human
bible says adam/first man...far as i can see nothing much different

bible says god created
science says..chance/random-selection/survival..of fittest

the bible dont say the first creation..nor does science

its the same elites...selling the same spin..to control the masses
to give science/or religion...instead of god...

go figure./.man-kind..has many liers
but as jesus said...this realm belongs to satan..to expect truth/here
is to be ignorant..of just who/is running things..down here

i will give you a clue..it isnt god
he did the nature/natural
..sustains/life..logic..the natural/creation..etc

man/kind..water/fire/wind..the elements/..chance..did the rest

Notice Vanna insists on saying, “the theory of evolution” rather than simply saying “evolution”. This is done as a subtle way of re-enforcing the naive argument that evolution is “just a theory”.

As well read as Vanna is on creationist propaganda, unfortunately he seems to have missed these two pages...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

Both pages state that, “evolution is just a theory” is an argument that should not be used since a theory in scientific terms implies “well established”.

Or perhaps he has read those parts that is why he’s doing it subtly by continuing to unnecessarily add ”the theory” rather than simply saying “evolution”.

OUG is very rehearsed in his spewing of creationist propaganda, so I’m surprised he’s made this very mistake in the beginning of his last post.

Vanna,

Has it ever occurred to you that even if you did have a point about the alleged unanswered questions you’re raising, that it would mean nothing other than the fact that we need to search for the answer?

The ‘God of the Gaps’ argument is a fallacy because it assumes that we will never be able to find the answers to the unknowns, or that we somehow should have found the answers by now.

You can’t prove creationism by pointing to gaps (let’s forget that those gaps aren’t actually there for a second) in our knowledge. You would need to find positive proof for the intervening of an intelligent being.

If we applied your mentality to every gap in our knowledge then we would still be burning heretics.