[Tj3]

Thank you for that post TJ3 it points out exactly why you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution.

This is the type of argument that it always comes down to, isn't it! One side (Christians) posting the detailed technical information, and the other side just telling us that we don't understand (even when we are technical experts ourselves, and even when we are former evolutionists!).

[inthebox]

Evolution cannot explain with OSE what science shows us evidence of, mainly design.

[michealb]

Tj3 you are not an expert in biology. The notion that you once believed in evolution doesn't mean you ever understood it correctly. The reason it comes down to us telling you that you don't understand is because you don't want to understand and refuse to regardless of how much information is posted. You will not listen if you feel that the information goes against your belief and if you had even the slightest idea of about biology or evolution you would know why what you post is absolutely wrong and shows just how little you understand the subject matter.

[Tj3]

Tj3 you are not an expert in biology.

I do have post-secondary training in biology, and I am most certainly an expert in electronics technology, and I have studied evolution.

The notion that you once believed in evolution doesn't mean you ever understood it correctly.

Nor do your attacks on others indicate that you are knowledgeable in any of these areas. And even those who are knowledgeable don't always agree, so even if your derogatory comments had any basis in fact, it would still not in any way enhance your position or the credibility of your argument. Indeed the approach that you are taking is a defined logic fallacy.

The reason it comes down to us telling you that you don't understand is because you don't want to understand and refuse to regardless of how much information is posted.

Claiming that what you are posted must be accepted and believed by everyone else is not only arrogant, it is wrong. If you wish to post something, you must be prepared to defend it against challenges. That is, BTW, the scientific method. You have been unwilling to do so.

Unlike you, I am prepared to not only defend my position from a scientific perspective, but I am prepared to validate the claims that I make. You appear to be unwilling to do either. If you are unable or unwilling to defend your position, then that certainly does not add any credibilityy either to your claims of technical superiority or to the validaity of your position.

Now, instead of attacks on others, if you really believe what you say, then it should be easy to defend your position from a scientific perspective rather than making unvalidated attacks on your opponents.

[michealb]

I didn't say anything about you not being an expert in electronics. I said you are not an expert in biology. Even the biology course you took is meaningless. Just because you took a course doesn't mean you understood it. It doesn't even mean you took a good course. For all I know the biology course you took could have been at Tj3's Christian college.

Also it would be easy to explain my position to someone who understood the science behind it but since you are arguing out of ignorance so much so that you don't even understand the logical fallacy of your argument when Asking pointed it out to so wonderfully.

So the reason we don't want to discuss science with you is because you don't understand it enough to have a discussion and when we try to have discussion with you as soon as we make a point you don't like you ignore it and change the subject. So no I will not discus science with you on a subject line as broad as this one because you will just go off topic as soon as I point out that you have no idea what you are actually talking about just like you did when I pointed out that matter is energy.

[asking]

And I note that you [. . . ] claiming that those who disagree with you are "ignorant".

By the way, I did not say that. There is another use for the word "ignorance" than the one you are using. It doesn't have to have the connotation you apparently took it it to have. Everyone is ignorant of something. Otherwise this message board wouldn't exist. I didn't call anyone "ignorant," which would be insulting.

I did say that your grasp of science is quite weak and if you are going to continue to try to use science to prove the existence of God, I would urge you to learn the rudiments of a science. Biology or geology would both be great. I'm apologize if that's hard to hear. I do feel it's true and relevant to our discussion. It's unclear to me why you want to use science to prove the existence of God though. Is not faith enough for you?

(And I was addressing your question quite directly, not avoiding it.)
Just Asking

[Tj3]

I didn't say anything about you not being an expert in electronics. I said you are not an expert in biology. Even the biology course you took is meaningless. Just because you took a course doesn't mean you understood it. It doesn't even mean you took a good course. For all I know the biology course you took could have been at Tj3's Christian college.

You only argument is to try to demean others who disagree with you.

That is sad and demonstrates the bankruptcy of your position.

[Tj3]

I did say that your grasp of science is quite weak and if you are going to continue to try to use science to prove the existence of God, I would urge you to learn the rudiments of a science. Biology or geology would both be great. I'm apologize if that's hard to hear. I do feel it's true and relevant to our discussion. It's unclear to me why you want to use science to prove the existence of God though. Is not faith enough for you?

Like michael, it seems that you also do not have a scientific response to the issue, only an attack on the person.

Maybe that is all that the atheists have left to muster.

[asking]

According to those who think that the brain was developed naturally through chance, this would mean that they would foresee no problem with a few supercomputers designing and building themselves out of nothing but what we find in the ground / dirt.

This is an error. Biologists do not think that.

Why are you trying to use a tool you do not know how to use to prove God?

Science is a specialized tool for learning about the physical world. It is the wrong tool for the job. AND you are unfamiliar with the way this tool should be used.

[Tj3]

This is an error. Biologists do not think that.

I never said that they did. It would be silly to think that. That is exactly why evolution cannot be. I am trying to use an analogy to show how difficult it is to logically hold to the evolutionists position.

But I note that your only argument once again it to attack the person. I guess that you are struggling to deal with the issue.

[NeedKarma]

But I note that your only argument once again it to attack the person.

You seem to always scream 'personal attack' when in fact there are none. Is that your defense mechanism?

[asking]

Like michael, it seems that you also do not have a scientific response to the issue, only an attack on the person.

Maybe that is all that the atheists have left to muster.

It's just not very much fun to argue with someone who is trying to make an argument based on things I know are not true. There's no sport here. Your arguments are not only wrong, they are repetitive and dull. If you could actually engage about the science as many Christians do, it might be fun.

What is it that you are trying to accomplish with your argument that God can be proved by disproving evolution? Even if you could disprove evolution (and get a cover paper on the journal Nature!), it would not prove the existence of God.

But if you could prove the existence of God, what would that do for you personally? What's your motivation? Do you need this for yourself? Are you hoping to get us to admit we are wrong? Hoping to convert people to faith?

[asking]

I never said that they did. It would be silly to think that. That is exactly why evolution cannot be. I am trying to use an analogy to show how difficult it is to logically hold to the evolutionists position.

But I note that your only argument once again it to attack the person. I guess that you are struggling to deal with the issue.

I was referring to this part of your sentence, the basis for your argument. I had it in italics, forgetting the software puts everything in italics.

You wrote, "According to those who think that the brain was developed naturally through chance, "

You did say that. And it is an error.

[Tj3]

It's just not very much fun to argue with someone who is trying to make an argument based on things I know are not true. There's no sport here.

Agreed. So please get off the "You are not up to my level of understanding" ploy, and start validating your position. To be honest, I have not been impressed by the science demonstrated by thos who hold to the atheist position on here, but I have chosen to demonstrate the weakness of those arguments through validation and evidence, not through making unvalidated c laims against the person. The latter approach is a defined logic fallacy.

[Tj3]

I was referring to this part of your sentence, the basis for your argument. I had it in italics, forgetting the software puts everything in italics.

You wrote, "According to those who think that the brain was developed naturally through chance, . . . "

You did say that. And it is an error.

Why do some folks insist in taking things out of context? What I said was:

"According to those who think that the brain was developed naturally through chance, this would mean that they would foresee no problem with a few supercomputers designing and building themselves out of nothing but what we find in the ground / dirt."

Now I don't know any biologist who says that computers develop naturally from dirt, but that is the equivalent of saying that the brain did.

[NeedKarma]

To be honest, I have not been impressed by the science demonstrated by thos who hold to the atheist position on here

Why do you assume that being an atheist is based on science?

[Tj3]

Why do you assume that being an atheist is based on science?

I don't. Quite the contrary. I find far too many atheists who believe their religion regardless of what scientific evidence shows.

[asking]

Why do some folks insist in taking things out of context? What I said was:

"According to those who think that the brain was developed naturally through chance, this would mean that they would foresee no problem with a few supercomputers designing and building themselves out of nothing but what we find in the ground / dirt."

Now I don't know any biologist who says that computers develop naturally from dirt, but that is the equivalent of saying that the brain did.

I took it out of context, because I needed to show you the part that was wrong. You seemed to not understand the first time.

To further clarify, since you still seem confused, you don't know any biologists who say that the human brain developed either:
1. naturally from dirt
Or
2. "by chance."

I hope that covers all the bases.

[Tj3]

I took it out of context, because I needed to show you the part that was wrong. You seemed to not understand the first time.

To further clarify, since you still seem confused, you don't know any biologists who say that the human brain developed either:
1. naturally from dirt
or
2. "by chance."

I hope that covers all the bases.

So you are saying that all biologists reject evolution. Good!!

BTW, I note that you are still unable to refite what I said - you just keep trying to attack the person.

[asking]

Not believing in God is not directly "based" on science. I agree with NeedKarma.

But I do think Tj has a point that there's a connection. According to a survey conducted in 1998, elite scientists are much less likely to believe in a personal god than non scientists. In general, the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to believe in God. And, separately, the more they know about biology, the less likely they are to believe in God. (In Darwin's case, his loss of belief came before his theory of evolution, not the other way around, as is sometimes believed. And he also did not have a deathbed conversion, a myth.)

Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"  July 23, 1998

We found the highest percentage of belief among [National Academy of Sciences] mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).