>>>Things get better, then worse. A house left unattended will be reclaimed by the earth if left alone. Things left alone don't get better, they get worse.
>>
>>So we're alone, therefore doomed? Or, if we haven't perished yet, it is a proof of someone tending our house? C'mon, be more specific.
>
>Well, you could say we're doomed. If we get older, we're dying. If we don't, we're dead, so yeah, I'd say, in a sense, we're all doomed.

I meant "we" as the human species, or "we" as "life on Earth". You, me - we're already partially dead now, and completely dead in the long run.

> I'll prove God exists right after you prove he doesn't.<vbg> Back to my original statement - creation demands a creator.

I don't feel any urge to prove that any deity exists or not, I'm not an atheist, nor an anti-theist. IMO, they exist as human ideas, and are as real as any other idea can be. Actually, IMO, gods are one of major human achievements - they are designed so that they need not exist and yet can be used to explain everything; their existence cannot be proven or disproven. It's a perfect way to circumvent logic.

Creation, by definition, is something created by an author. We differ in opinion here - you say life was created; I say there's a much simpler explanation, it came to be after a number of random chemical reactions. Number may be equally unimaginable as any deity can be. The science hasn't succeeded yet in retroactively reconstructing the process, or any of its equivalents. But they're getting there, maybe in our lifetime. And I surely hope they'll have a free hand at that, without any religious group trying to burn them down for trying to do what their deity claims monopoly to... as if any Dick wasn't already capable of creating life.