The Truth About Evolution and Religion

And from this, how did you arrive at your figure of 300²⁰?

No they're not. Random mutations are the cause of the difference in inherited characteristics you mentioned in part 2. Part 3 is the result of natural selection on those random mutations. No, it's called evolution. Although there are some other mechanisms involved in that as well. But for this example, I'd call it evolution.

Please demonstrate this.

Quotes are irrelevant, I asked you to demonstrate it, not quote people who repeat what you said. Have they demonstrated it? Then produce their work. Until then, it's just an argument from incredulity.

Will you stop linking to your video and just present your arguments here? It's against the forum rules to use links to do the arguing for you. How do you know this? So, an infinite being cannot have free will and conscious knowledge? We do have a cause, they're called parents. How do you know? QED nothing. You're making assertions. Show them to be the case. And so do many other religious texts, should we believe them as well? The Quran comes to mind.

Of course there is. This is why Miller testified against Behe in the Dover trial. If he had agreed with him, he wouldn't have done that. Again, stop posting links and present your arguments here. This is against the forum rules.Also, What does all this have to do with demonstrating that life is too complex to have evolved? You still haven't presented anything that shows this to be the case. Don't change subjects.

What the hell are you on about? Would you mind answering the questions I asked you? Specifically the ones for evidence of your assertions. That's called conscience, or morality, not free will.

Look, either it evolved, or it didn't. If you say it did evolve, then why attack evolution? So? And what if you add in billions of tries at the same time? So? No, for it is evolution that explains complexity. That's why no scientific paper limits itself to just natural selection. There's also random mutation, genetic drift etc.

Seeing as Wounded King is an actual scientist researching in the field (I believe he does something with molecular biology) I think he's pretty aware of what those scientists know or don't know. Yes, and we've been telling you that it's not to the scientists studying it. Neither is the origin of life a "mystery". We don't have the definitive answer yet, that's true, but there are several possible scenarios that scientists are looking into. I think the same goes for the big bang, but you'd have to ask a physicist about that. But Behe isn't a proponent of Darwinism, he's a proponent of ID. Why do you keep going back to this "Darwinism"? There isn;t a scientist in biology today who limits hmself to descent with modification acted upon by natural selection. They include the other known processes as well, as Wounded King has been talking about. But why would they do that. Those are not the only things involved.Why do you limit yourself to Darwinian evolution? There has been progress in the field of biology since 150 years agoi, you know.

I'm sorry, I must've missed that, got a link to these "lessons"? I'll determine that myself when I see those "lessons". I very much doubt a university is lying though. I highly doubt that they say only natural selection explains complexity, but please, prove me wrong by linking to their "lessons". Nonsense, ID was thought up long after evolution. there's no need to discredit it for a university, that has already been done in the dover trial. Nonsense. University courses on biology do not even touch on such philosophical questions.

Because it's a nonsensical question, that's why. It's like asking "can this pipe help with a heart transplant" to a plumber. Of course they can. And I wouldn't be surprised of some actually will. First give evidence for a soul, then you can go running around claiming that humans must have souls. Oh yes, Kenneth Miller has such a hard time because he's a catholic and believes in souls, hasn't he....

I agree. Really? How come? Please, just answer the question. You assert that having free will and conscious knowledge means we must be embodied spirits, demonstrate to me why this conclusion is valid. What do you mean by "Free will is not a scientific concept"? I'll admit humans have free will, in that they can distinguish between different choices that can be made and choose one of the options available.

You've said this several times before, it doesn't make it any more true. The ability to distinguish between differeent choices and pick one of them. There, defined. I'm sorry, what? This makes just as much sense. Namely none.I'm really trying to get at what you're trying to say here, but all I can see is some mumbo jumbo about "ndefinabilities" and "embodied spirits". What is the point to all that? Are these your beleifs (if they are, ok fine, if that makes you happy, it still leaves me wondering why you started this thread) or can you demonstrate them in any way to be true?

Uhm... From our ability to choose?

No, it's called using logiic. We have the ability to choose, ergo we can conclude that we have free will. What? I know this page is black and white, because I can see this page is black and white.