In my opinion we are an evolution of animals. We may not seem like animals to some people because of the degree of intelligence we have aquired but that is because we got to a stage in which we eventually could teach our selves and keep passing our knowledge down to one another. other animals haven't created a language with the easiest communication of complex phrases and do not have the traits needed to teach themselves. For example if humans had never learned how to communicate with each other like we are now we would most likely not know what I was writing right now and computers may not even exist to right this on. Another thing is that I know very little about how computers work, with there logic gates and other simple circuits and that is because no one really wants us to know and there for not many people can build a slightly more complex computer than a clock by themselves. If we don't teach others of what we know the chances of figuring it out without research of other things keeps us from learning how to do that complex thing. also the reason we are evolutions of animals has already been solved relatively through science. you could read about "guns germs and steel" by Jared Diamond which is a book that explains why some human societies have there own level of technology way of life etc.

@username if God presented himself to me I have no exact idea of what I would do. I would probably be surprised and wish to ask him if my theory is correct and multiple other questions and requests. But remember like I said before there is a chance that we have been abandoned and no one is watching over us anymore :< I hope not,because that would mean we must be unimportant, but the best thing we could do is make a place that we could all be happy some day. If we don't kill our selves first like many other species probably have.

I also wonder that maybe on other planets if animals or whatever we will call them will be carbon based or not.

@sandwich you forgot about var=random(a number(large number))

Yes, they will. DNA is a code, it is made from a string of instructions. As a result, the fundamental backbone must have at least three covalent bonds, leaving us with boron, carbon, silicon, nitrogen and phosphorus. Boron isn't abundant enough, nitrogen and phosphorus are both far too reactive (ever seen phosphorus burn?). Three-bond atoms aren't ideal anyway, the information density is lower than if you have a four-bond central atom. This leaves us with carbon, silicon, germanium, tin et cetera. Germanium, tin and the lower group 4 (14 in newspeak) aren't abundant enough - remember, all matter is formed by fusion and making heavier elements gets particularily difficult. Carbon and silicon are quite literally everywhere. The problem with silicon is that it very readily glues itself to oxygen in a very strong bond which is an ionic/covalent mix. Due to silicon being very highly charged but being a relatively small atom, it has a ginormous charge density and as a result the bond is super strong. So that knocks silicon out of the running, although it is still feasible but just really unlikely.

That IS pseudo-random number generation. They use chaotic sequences and other stuff I don't understand. Big long lists of numbers, in other words. It isn't truly random. It's an illusion. Which is what my point was.

oops I forgot to say "to teach themselves to the extent that we are able to teach ourselves"

@sandwich most of our computers use that but maybe the machine we run on is using something similar to TRNGs(true random number generators) source

But of course maybe we are using pseudo-random number generation, I was just saying that maybe we aren't in a predictable world although we could be in one.

I expected visual/spatial to overshadow musical a bit, but I guess having a bad visual memory makes you less artistic. Also, mathematical should have been around 0%.

@username:

The MBTI "test," if one could call should an arbitary collection of questions anything approaching a rigorous examination of the human psyche, doesn't represent 4 different sides or facets to the human condition. These sides do not argue and bicker like children. They work together. So when I say I am a part of the large group called "INTJ," this doesn't mean my introversion fights against my perception. This means my thinking is perform introvertedly, that my ability to judge a situation is based off my intuition. These letters represent global preferences for cognition. You are an "INTP," you prefer to think about what you percieve utilising your intuition in an introverted manner. To actually go about answering the question and providing closure, don't worry that your thoughts and your faith don't quite mesh perfectly.

Christianity isn't a "no thinking allowed" religion, I don't really think any religions truly are, you can argue against God and you can argue against your own beliefs. Don't be afraid to doubt the status quo, even to be angry at the status quo. The important point is that theology is good for you: If you don't exercise your muscles you become weak, and the brain is the most important muscle of them all.

@Sandwich:

It's interesting that you say no religions are reasonable, I too feel the same. So that's why I created my own. Or rather, I fitted myself into a loose fellowship of religions: Deism. I believe there is a God, I do not believe in determinism, I do not believe in organised religion and I don't agree that Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha or Abraham were prophets of some omnipotent force (but the Torah, the Bible and the Qu'ran are interesting philosophical texts). If you don't like it, you don't have to play with the cool mainstream religion kiddies. Oh, and I really hate indoctrination even though, due to the belief system of those particular religions, it is necessary.

@F1ak3r:

Yeah, I'm part of the no unreasonable accidents school of thought as well. Humans and animals are only different in that we think we're not instinctive, animals know they are instinctive. Humans, in reality, are very instinctive. It's just we've evolved social graces to lubricate our conflicting instincts. It's interesting that you mention the Big Bang, I wouldn't think of it as within the realm of normal physics: Time didn't exist. That's why we can't tell you, because it's impossible to comprehend the non-existence of time. Bear in mind, though, that our concept of 5 dimensions is based on what we observe - since all of what we observe is the simulation, then why should the simulation bear any resemblence whatsoever to what is outside the simulation?

I found out that I'm a freethinker

"Freethought holds that individuals should neither accept nor reject ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason" etc…