XPost: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian, alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion   
   XPost: talk.atheism, us.issues.abortion   
   From: warnnock@pop.co.za   
      
   "Mark Sebree"  wrote in message   
   news:c30d43e8.0402181533.71c7a018@posting.google.com...   
      
      
   > And that last part is an assumption on your part.  Why do you assume   
   > that someone must have made people?  Evolution accounts for the   
   > existance of the human race quite nicely, without assuming the   
   > existance of magic or the supernatural.   
      
   ****** Evolution, can account for reproduction - but all its saying is that   
   your body knows how to reproduce itself. Where we differ is that man can't   
   make an intelligent, living life form - except through the womb.   
      
   > > Even the natural process,   
   > > through pregnancy, requires an advanced system/being to bring it to   
   > > fruitation.   
   >   
   > Nope.  No reason to make that assumption.  The mechanism of internal   
   > gestation can easily be accounted for by evolution.  There is a   
   > greater chance that the young will be born if the mother is not fixed   
   > to a single location, and the young have a chance to develop more in   
   > the safety of the womb, so they are more likely to be able to move,   
   > run, and hide on their own very soon after birth.  This helps increase   
   > the survivability of the young.   
      
   ****** What sustains the order in the universe - that planets stay in their   
   orbits, the earth keeps turning and gravity? Would this not need a   
   controlling force?   
      
   > There is no need to assume the existance of a controlling   
   > being/deity/creator/whatever.   
      
   ****** I see a need for 'a law of Nature', in all of this!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)