SBC, I can't TELL you how encouraging your spirit is to me.
I'm glad I could be encouraging to you, MJW, but please don't be misled. While I can't personally state with certainty the existence or nonexistence of intelligent designer(s), I am convinced that your religion is no more spirit-directed than Quakers, Mulsims, or Scientologists. And besides that, if there is a creator, if he is still in existence, and if he is concerned with our actions, I believe he would take it as insult that so many attribute the bloodthirsty actions of the OT god to him.
Think that they [Legos] given infinite time and chances, could form themselves into little cars or buildings?
I presume we're moving to a new chain of logic and letting the other one (who made the Maker) dangle for the time being? That's fine but please be sure to send me a PM or something if you pick it back up when I'm not around. I'll try to see it through.
To answer your question about the legos, though, I'd say no. I also suspect that's the answer you're looking for, eh, you sly devil? But before you pat yourself on the back let's discuss it.
Years ago I had the talk outline Appreciating Marvels of God's Creation. One illustration I used (from the Creation book maybe?) was regarding a watch: I asked the audience what would happen if I took a box of watch parts and shook it for 100 billion years... Would I ever get a watch? Noooooooo! (And the audience would nod as they blindly accepted the irrefutable logic that showed evolutionary scientists must be dumb as dirt.) But that was a classic strawman argument. Create a big, weak example, burn it down fast, no further debate required as the argument has been refuted.
One problem with that logic (and there are many) is that you already have the end product in mind. I'm learning about natural selection right now and it's clear that evolution is a methodical process but has no specific end product in mind, named in advance. But, again, I'm undereducated right now. I've got a lot of reading and studying to do to be properly informed, before I can pass judgment (impartially).
Since we're being forthright, can you honestly say you've given evolution a chance before rejecting it? I accepted the logic presented to me by my parents (& WT), therefore I could ignore scientists claims without lifting a finger. As it turns out, I had a number of misconceptions about evolution. I was prejudice; ignorant and biased against something I didn't really understand.
Here's what a scientist might say about the old watch-pieces-in-a-box logic:
"[That argument] depends upon several basic misunderstandings of science. First, it gets the Second Law [of Thermodynamics] completely wrong. Second, it attempts to apply common sense about macroscopic objects to the world of atoms and molecules, and we've known since the early 20th Century that no such common sense correspondence exists. Indeed, on a molecular level, complex machines akin to molecular watches form from shaking atomic watch parts in a bag all the time. To draw a correspondence such as this is as intellectually bankrupt as saying that the results of performing a double-slit experiment with photons and a diffraction grating should yield the same result with Buicks and fast food drive-thrus."
Pretty interesting. I've got quite a bit of work cut out for me but it's worth it if I really want to be objective in searching for truth, right?
