Summations Only

Can you please point to any post where I used any such extrapolation? You seem to be making stuff up. When you feel the need to attack the messenger because you don't like the message, it is a good sign that you can't refute the message.

That has nothing to do with whether they are true. Then what are you going on about?

Atheists are free to take the "I don't know" position. Science is all about explaining how the universe works, and that is exactly what the theory of evolution does.

Thanks for the references. I will try and find them.

That is as wrong as saying that putting one foot in front of the other is hardly a pathway leading to walking a mile. The accumulation of mutations like the one that produced new coloration in moths is exactly the pathway that results in massive biological change. So we have a mutation in a region that previously didn't have function, but due to the mutation it now has function. How is this a problem for evolution?

So you admit that Universal Common Descent is scientific?

Uh, no. Please support that ridiculous statement.There is nothing about evolution that contradicts the idea of Divine Creation. If you believe that there is, then do please tell us why you believe that and try to make a case for it.There are false and contrary-to-fact claims that creationists will make which do conflict with reality and hence with science. In that case, the problem lies with the false creationist theologies and not with science. To correct that problem, you need to correct the false theology, not reject the science.The only way that accepting evolution can cause atheism is if that person's religion had falsely taught him that if evolution is true then the only response is to become an atheist. I have seen far too many creationists spout that particular false teaching to me and insist upon it very adamantly.The fact of evolution is indeed true, so people remaining true to their religion's false teachings will become atheists. Not because of evolution, but rather because of their religion. What I cannot understand is why, upon discovering that their religion had lied to them about evolution, they don't also realize that their religion had also lied to them about having to become atheists if evolution turns out to be true.Edited by dwise1, : "reject", not "ignore"

But how would you know? If you didn't think there was any biological relationship between humand and pigs, how would you make the connection?Hint: Creationists didn't.

Creation is not a theory. It doesn't explain anything. All it does is claim that a giant invisible question mark created everything.

Interesting that you fantasize about my history. Actually, I was exposed to the Theory of Evolution during the summer when I was 13. I remember because it was the first year that I worked for my grandfather on his ranch. I always read a lot of books during the summer and one that year was a large book on the history of life. It was absolutely fascinating and by the end of the summer, I was convinced that religion was as childish as belief in Santa Claus. What convinced me was the evidence, a whole book full of it (and this was before molecular biology). I already knew I wanted to be a scientist studying insects and that book gave me the basis to understand why there are so many species and how they came to be unique. 150 years ago Darwin gave us a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on our planet. He organized his explanation so well that it became the scaffold for the systematic study of all of biology. We have really learned a lot in the last 150 years and all the observations confirm that life has evolved and is evolving. Curiously, none of the evidence indicates that creationism is anything but childish fantasy. Well, it's too bad that you don't know anything about science, but your envy of those of us that do makes your ignorance all the sadder. It sure seems to piss you off that millions of scientists and millions more of smart people accept and use the Theory of Evolution and completely ignore what you creationists think.The funny part is that you worst insult you can come up with is "atheist theology". It is clear that even though you won't admit it, you know that religion is childish drivel that no adult would still believe in.

You have it backwards.I grew up in a very religious background. I was practically born in church. I could quote large swaths of the Bible literally before I could read. But as a teenager I tried to prove that the flood story was true and I discovered that it's impossible. The flood could not have happened.I have been sliding toward atheism (I won't admit to being there yet) BECAUSE of the lame attempts by religionists to prove the lie of creation.But you are right about there being no alternative to evolution. Creation isn't even a close second.

Actually, religion is much more than that. Not that you could tell from the nonsense we keep encountering from creationists and "true Christians."I am an atheist and have been one for more than half a century. Furthermore, everything I've seen of Christians (again, mainly creationists and "true Christians") informs me against Christianity and confirms that I made the right decision to leave it over 50 years ago.But the way that creationists and "true Christians" misuse and abuse religion does not mean that religion is worthless. As hugely successful science is at answering questions about the real world, it can only work for a small subset of questions, namely questions about how the real world works.Unfortunately, that does not include most of the really interesting and important questions, such as what our minister (UU) called the fundamental religious question, "How then are we to live our lives?" Science cannot even begin to address those questions, but at most can only offer factual information in connection to those questions. Only religion and philosophy can dare to try to tackle those questions. Unfortunately, because of way in which the very nature of the questions shape the methods of religion and philosophy, those methods are far less reliable than the methods of science, which makes their answers far less reliable. But they're the only game in town for those kinds of questions, so what are you going to do?As I recently discussed, one of the most useful products of science are the further questions that it raises. In the process of answering one scientific question, you discover something which raise more questions that serve to direct further research. An answer which does not generate more questions or even serves to stifle further questions (eg, inserting "goddidit" into science) is of very little use and can even be harmful to science.Similarly, the answers produced by religion are not very useful and can even be detrimental. Rather, what makes religion useful are the questions. Religion needs to get us to ask the right questions. We may never be able to find the answers to those questions, nor should we expect to be able to, but the important thing is that we ask those questions and we think about them and try to find the answers. The really important questions will then generate yet more questions."To question is the answer" is a buzz phrase associated with Unitarian-Universalism (UU). I understand it to have originated from the civil rights and anti-war efforts of the 1960's, when it referred to questioning authority. There's even a joke: How do you know that Unitarian night riders had visited you in the night? You wake up to find a burning question mark in your front yard. I also saw a Super-Unitarian emblem, the Superman emblem with a question mark instead of an "S". But that phrase also works on a religious level, where it refers to the essential purpose of religion to get us to ask questions, the right questions.So religion is only "childish drivel that no adult would still believe in" when it's not used right, when it only dictates arbitrary answers that you are forbidden to question. When religion is used right, it gets you asking the right questions, which can be very useful. When used right, even Christianity can contribute to one's spiritual growth, incredible as that may sound.

---

"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
(Andre Gide)"{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy."
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)"God is not what you imagine, or what you think you understand. For if you understand, you have failed."
(Augustine of Hippo)

The roster of truly great people who became believers after a long time of typical worldly indoctrination proves you wrong. The latest I happen to have read about is Rosaria Butterfield who was a professor of English with a Marxist lesbian twist when she was persuaded to the truth of the Bible. C.S. Lewis was a professor of literature too when God reached down and snapped him up as well. Those two stand out in recent time for me but if I go back before Darwin there's a long list of them. There are plenty of non-greats who went through the same experience I'm sure: I was just as indoctrinated in evolution and the old earth when I became a believer in my late forties. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, that doesn't prove anything other than well known people can become just as deluded as people none of us have heard of. Well, whoever indoctrinated you didn't know what they were talking about, judging from your poor grasp of evolution and geology. All you demonstrate is that you are easily indoctrinated.

If I was easily indoctrinated it would have happened long before my late forties, and nobody persuaded me by the way, I got interested in the subject and read books over a period of years until I was finally persuaded. Butterfield may not really be a "great" but she was no pushover. Took a number of years during which she thought she was learning the Bible in order to debunk fundamentalism before she too saw the light. C.S. Lewis was a lot smarter than the likes of you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.