two important questions for Servant

Well we know that you HAVEN'T got an open mind.If you had an open mind you would look at the evidence before rejecting it as "speculation". But that isn't what you've done is it ?The creationist mindset is fundementally one of a closed mind. Arguments with creationists often come down to the creationist inventing lame excuses - which may not even make sense - rather than admit that he could be wrong. We've seen some extreme examples here.Now then how about answering Schraf's question properly ? You still haven't offered a real explanation of the evidence.

Your "offer' doesn't make sense. Why should anyone uncritically accept any argument just because it seems sound ? Never mind if it came from the "opposition - arguments from both sides need to be critically evaluated.But I think I can offer an example that SHOULD count - Thornhill and Usser responded to Michael Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" by catalogueing the basic pathways open to Darwinian evolution, and statign which could produce Irreducible Complex structures. They took Behe's idea and extended his analysis. Asking for anything more than that is foolish.Oh and I do understand how a debate works - not that this is a formal debate. I can also recognise evasion when I see it.

The problem with your idea Mike is that science DIDN'T start with the idea of evolution and an old Earth.Science started with the idea of a Young Earth, Noah's Flood and fixity of species. They were all abandoned because the evidence was against themAs For John McKay's evidence I suggest that you compare what he offers onhis site:Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Deniedwith this29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentThere's just no competition.

Well either you have managed to work out all the possible pathways to the formation of life including all the relevant factors - OR - you are making claims you can't possibly defend.Well I have to say that I don't think that you are Nobel Prize material, but if I'm wrong feel free to stun us all with your long list of cutting-edge scientific publications.

The objection is simple To actually work out the probability you would have to be way ahead of the leading experts in a rapidly moving field - and have solved one of the greatest problems in science.Now I know that you haven't done that, Brian Greene hasn't and that therefore you have NO idea what the probablity is.

The probability of your body passing through a wall is a relatively simple calculations. The basic principles are well understood.Why don't you just admit the truth ? You don't know what the probability of life forming is - and nobody else does either.

Given the time available and the resources of a planet then no, we don't have to say that the probability of life forming is low. it could be quite high. Possibly it is inevitable given an earth-like planet and a few hundred million years.

I odn't think that there is any quantum element to the mind. Penrose's speculations are interesting but have serious problems. For instance microtubules are an ordinary part of eukaryotic cells and to the best of my knowledge those in the brain are nothing special.I'm not familiar with the holographic principle so I won't comment on that.But to calculate the probability of life forming - not life with human level intelligence really would have to KNOW what sort of conditions ARE "just right". And to do that we'd have to know the possible forms of life (we can't just say that it has to be just like the life we know about. A recent popular level book - Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart's _What Would a Martian Look Like_ aka _Evolving the Alien_ goes into the issues.Now the real question is why - when I am pointing out that your argument is based on very qustionable assumptions you suddenly want to claim that I am being hostile to the conclusion ? Isn't it you that is being hostile to the possiblity that life could form naturally ?

Microtubules play a role in the structure and operation of the cell. But there is no reason to suppose that they play any special role in consciousness apart from that (or that quantum properties are involved beyond the chemistry).Frankly the attempt to link consciousness and quantum mechanics doesn't seem to go beyond the fact that both are strange and poorly understood.

I'm not convinced that "God" would qualify as a theory rather than a hypothesis. Celestial mechanics is a theory. The existence of at least some of the outer planets (Uranus and Neptune) was proposed as a hypothesis to explain apparent deviations from the theory. God's existence would then seem to be a hypothesis and the observations would be confirmatory evidence - similar to the observations of Uranus and Neptune.If the supposed "God" then claimed to have made the Earth in a literal six days around 6000 years ago we would have to weigh the evidence contrary to that against the evidence that the supposed "God" was indeed God. I would have to say that simply given the situation you propose I would find it hard to imagine how the evidence that we are indeed seeing God could be greater than that for the antiquity of the Earth. In that situation we would have to reject the hypothesis that what we see is in fact God. However if the weight of evidence were - somehow - reversed then the hypothesis should be accepted.