The Truth About Evolution and Religion

No, taht's called muscle control. And you can't move your hand anyway you want. Youcan't spin it around 400 times for example, even if you wanted to. Of course. What? This makes very little sense to me. Could you elaborate please?

Deep thinker? I think it's a bit stupid to demand of someone else to prove the flower is not an illusion. There's no way he can do that. Hell, I couldn't even prove to myself that flower isn't an illusion. So? Revalation? Do you mean reality? Yes. However, we don't just know the "right" decission, that's arrived at after waying the evidence. How the hell does that follow from what you said before? And please show how they are irtrational. Will you final start answering questions, or will even more mumbo jumbo follow?

So, you've got problems with simple calculations as well? Both decks have the exact same probability of forming! It's the meaning we assign to the decks that makes it " important". Any 52 card deck has exactly the same probability of forming as any other 52 card deck. Also, none of this has anything to do with entropy.

Actually, all biologists (well, maybe some don't), think that life has evolved, and it's evolved through more than just natural selection. Why do you keep limiting yourself to just that?Please answer the question.

Of course there is an explanation for the complexity of life, it's called the theory of evolution. Ask any biologist, they'll confirm it. There are many religious biologists, Kenneth Miller being perhaps the most prominent one. He'll tell you exactly the same thing, that the theory of evolution explains the complexity of life. No it isn't. There are numerous other religoious texts that say that. The Quran comes to mind as one. So, they're all true as well? There are several explanations, we just haven't figured out the correct one yet. There is no speculation about the cause of evolution. The cause of evolution is explained by the theory of evolution.Will you finally take all this to heart, or will you simply go along and in a hundered posts or so will again say exactly the same false things?

Hey fizz57102 Welcome to EvC! I think you made a typo yourself. But at least with you it is clearer that it is a typo. Edited by Huntard, : I also made a typo! Typos for teh win!

Perhaps, but the second sentence of his first point alludes to him wanting dkroemer to agree with him on the point that entropy can decrease locally.I just found it a bit weird that he would then say that once they agree it can increase, they can continue.Like you said, it's a bit confusing.But of course, if he didn't make a typo, I'm sure he'll explain that to me.

I agree completely. I asked him god knows how many question to get a clearer view of his argument, but he either doesn't react at all, or answers with more of his mumbo jumbo. And then he says he finds it hard to believe I don't understand what he is saying! Indeed.Well, Mr. Roemer, it seems I am certainly not the only one who doesn't understand what you are trying to do here.

ID is a disagreement about biology.Kenneth Miller will absolutely agree about what explains the complexity of life. That would be the theory of evolution.I have absolutely no idea why you pulled out this quote about Behe, as Kenneth Miller's disagreement with Behe is not something I eluded to. Kenneth Miller will tell you that the theory of evolution is the explanation for the complexity of life, as will almost all other biologists, religious or not.

Whatever gave you that bizarre idea? Litterally nothing Dr. Adequate said implies that.

Yes. It is also the change over time in populations. It's not called macro-evolution. That would be speciation. Also, Darwin already noticed this trend, making common descent way older than just the 20th century. I don;t know how ancient it is, but the rest seems accurate. It's not out of date, in fact it's still the name of the theory that explains evolution. Just like "gravitational theory" is still the theory that explains gravity. Yes, something like that. Does not include random mutations, survival of the fittest is a consequence of natural selection. I don't know what you meant with your etc. here, so no comment on that. Natural selection is the pressure the environment puts on individuals. Those individuals who have genes (that are a result of random mutation) that give them traits that make them handle those pressures better, and reproduce better, will spread those genes and traits through the population, until eventually almost or all members of the population have those same genses and traits. Intelligent design needs no improvement to natural selection to show that it's bullcrap. Specifically, Facilitated variation show irreducible complexity (one thing put forward by ID people) to be incorrect very effectively. Quite correct. It's a very incomplete explanation then. No. they don't say that because the theory of evolution explains complexity. Why would they something explains complexity, when they know something else does. Well no, that's just how you apply t here. Also note that this is only the case in a closed system, in an open system (Earth) this is not the case. No, the heat lost during that expansion is an example. No it isn't. It is based upon observations made concerning heatflow. Of course not, so far as we know, nothing does, that's why it's called a law. No they aren't. Saying or writing something does not violate the second law. Also, they are wrong, because they should say tat the theory of evolution explains common descent.

Well, kinda. They were exagerated. Anyway, who pointed this out again? Oh yes, other scientist who believed in evolution. Yes it is. Actually, the experiment goes something like this:Take a single bacteria, grow a population )or several) out of it and introduce an antibiotic to the environment. Lots of them will die, but some will survive. If the original bacteria had the gene to survive this, then why did so many die? There's only one conclusion possible. It didn't. It evolved within the population somewhere between you starting to grow them and you introducing the antibiotic.Som that one is true as well.

Not neccessarily. The original gene could've been duplicated (meaning the organism now has two of that gene) and only then mutate into a new gene, meaning no gene was lost, but a new one was created. Since all the evidence we have points to the fact that they evolved from prior species, I wouldn't see why we'd need to "re-evaluate how species emerge", we seem to know. But why do that if the evidence points to exactly that being the case? Really? What other explanation do you have? Someone wanted to trick us into thinking this was the case?