And what makes you think that I care about what some ignoramus thinks? Just like with Specter Phoenix, calling people out on their stupidity never gets old. I'm not posting for your sake, as you are beyond hope, but for people who are not quite as dead set on being wrong, those who post here and those that don't. So they don't read your arguments from ignorance and somehow think that they are valid reasons to believe in god. The worst thing you can do with believers in god is let them speak unchallenged to the questioning.

Because complete understanding will establish the evolutionary link between the brains of insects, fish and mammals (including humans). The "creation" will, as with everything else, will be pushed back to 14 billion years ago.

I didn't see this mentioned by Neil, so someone should probably ask him if he doesn't already believe that ...

I have no idea; it's your argument. But if you don't know what you're arguing againt, that might explain why I've been reading your arguments as a bit nonsensical ...

You're right, he didn't mention it, and no, they shouldn't ask him because he won't say.

I really should learn to take a page from Trent's book and just hide these threads as soon as I see one.

An Altair 8800 can't comprehend itself either, so what's the point here?

That's just the justification for my tone, it has nothing to do with the argument itself.

The fact that we understand that the brain's complexity arose from evolutionary pressures is the argument against that complexity being evidence for a creator.

Who said that? The investigations of science wouldn't be necessary if we had all the answers. OTOH, the religious viewpoint of "God did it" (it's magic) isn't very satisfying to somebody who wonders how it all works.

Don't those imply the same thing?

No, it's not. Religion is all about having something nice to believe in, to give you strength when you need it, a role model, a sense of belonging, things like that. It's not about literally how the universe was actually made. It doesn't interfere with scientific method in any way.

I won't even bother to read anything after that, until that point is understood. Not enough time in the day

Why not believe something that's actually true?

Those things are in principle fine, but people (it seems) insist on them (the role model bit is especially a big offender here) because there's authority in the Bible that is invested in it by virtue of god doing supernatural things. Like they say that doing X is good, but doing Y is bad and then go "because that's what's written in the Bible". There are some good things in the Bible (haven't found them myself, though, but I'm told there are good things in it), but there are also plenty of bad things too. It seems odd to follow some things in it and not others while at the same time using the Bible's authority to justify one's morals.

I think morals should come from philosophical and practical consideration, not because of their accidental inclusion into some ancient cult's storybook. You can have a sense of belonging, role models etc without religion too. I've just been to a scientific conference with lots of smart people who chatted and joked and had fun etc etc while being brought together by a common quest for knowledge, and not some ancient book.

I'll repeat the beginning of my post: Why not believe something that's actually true? The scientific method is awesome at discovering truth about the world, and scientific pursuit is an incredibly social activity. You can have so much fun doing science... why do you need religion?

Hmmm. I think I've heard enough to satisfy my curiousity (and clarify something I seem to have not been understanding), so I'll drop it. For what it's worth, I kind of agree and kind of disagree with both of you.

Fail troll is fail.

The nature of the world, maybe ...

I see this very odd attitude pop up every now and then, usually from the science department. When was a "need" implied?

No, it doesn't. For anything you can't observe, measure, experiment on, repeat, or otherwise apply a scientific technique to, science is (unsurprisingly) shit.