Summations Only

Then why do you pretend that they don't work?Or, as Glenn R. Morton pointed out, "... while you may be ignorant of what evolutionary processes are used for and how they help your life, your statement that evolution is irrelevant to your life is simply wrong and displays an ignorance of what is being done by evolutionary processes to help your lifestyle ."

Please define "kinds". Oh yeah, you are never able to do so.What does evolution predict? What does evolution predict? Branching within established kinds. So what difference are you trying to offer here?

Yes. Clades. Nested clades. Exactly what evolution predicts.So what's your point?Commonly, we see creationists say that evolution requires a cat to give birth to a dog. A ludicrous lie."But they're STILL MOTHS!!!!" That is one of those stupid things that creationists say in order to tell you that they have no clue what they're talking about, like "it's just a theory." We show you a mammal that evolved into a different mammal species and a creationist shouts, "but they're STILL MAMMALS!!!!" What do you expect, feathers?So what's your point?

quoted in Message 565: Dredge, you should be replying to that quote's own message, Message 536. What you replied to instead was my reply to CRR apparently accusing me of saying something I didn't (which he retracted while avoiding the points I raised), in which I quoted myself verbatim asking him to point out what I was supposed to have said what he had erroneously accused me of. Please go back to the original, Message 536, and reply to that instead. I feel that I made some rather good points there. What a load of crap! Of course not. Everybody knows that. We are not omniscient. The goal of answering every scientific question does exist and everybody knows that it is unattainable, but that is never a reason for giving up and not trying.So just who insists that science must be able to answer every single scientific question? Creationist idiots. What's your argument? That since we are unable to answer every single possible scientific question then we should give up and not bother to try to answer even one? Sheer idiocy! Consider the case of wanting to harvest a field of wheat so that you can feed yourself. You would argue that since we cannot harvest every single grain of wheat in that field, we shouldn't try to harvest any at all, not even one. Fine, you deserve to starve to death. And here's your Darwin Award that you earned and so richly deserve. Yes, science can provide a rational answer. It's called reproduction. You may have heard about it, but hopefully not practiced it yourself (lest we have to take your Darwin Award away from you).As for the unstated question of how that species had arisen, its complexity indicates that it had evolved -- remember that complexity, even "irreducible complexity", is a product of evolution, not of design (which abhors undue complexity). And how did it evolve? Science can examine the evidence and work out an answer to that. That's what science does best: answer the "how" questions. And even more important, when it gets an answer wrong, then it's very good at detecting that and correcting that mistake -- when do we ever see a religion detecting and correcting its mistakes?What is the alternative that you want to offer? "Goddidit!"? Sorry, but that is not an answer for a scientific question, for a question of "how does this work?". For example: While "goddidit" may answer some theological questions, it offers absolutely nothing towards answering scientific questions, questions about how the physical universe works. Adding it to a scientific answer contributes absolutely nothing to that answer. Leaving it out of a scientific answer does not detract from that answer in any manner whatsoever. It is a true fact that I drive a Honda hybrid. What does that true fact contribute to answering the question of how light refracts as it passes from one medium to another of a different density? Nothing whatsoever. How does leaving that true fact out detract from that answer? In absolutely no manner whatsoever."Goddidit!" is even worse than a non-answer. If you allow it to (and you would insist upon it), then it can fool you into thinking that the question had been answered. Then you would stop looking for the actual answer to that question. Far worse still, you would resist other people's efforts to find the answer, thinking that by continuing to ask that question they are questioning God, opposing God, and promoting atheism. Isn't that what you've been doing?Besides, if you were actually a creationist, you would believe that God created the universe, including all the natural processes, so when something happens through natural processes, such as evolution, then it should be a given that God did it. Instead, like so many other deluded fake creationists, you seem to believe that something happening through natural processes somehow disproves God. Again, sheer idiocy!So since science is not perfect and cannot answer every single possible scientific question, you want us to abandon it and replace it with the ultimate non-answer, "goddidit!". Complete and utter idiocy!Despite its limitations, science is still the best and most reliable method we have for learning about the physical universe. The more we learn about the universe, the better off we are.Instead, you would want to doom us to abject ignorance, which is understandable since your religion obviously depends on your continued ignorance and would shrivel up if exposed to the light. Or at least that is what your witness repeatedly tells us.And you should probably stop trying to speak for your god. The counter-productive way you go about it must really piss her off.And yet again, please explain your reasoning behind saying that evolution is an "atheist theology". You do have some reason for uttering such nonsense, don't you? So what is it?

All of which is what evolution also says, except for your stilted terminology.Speciation occurs, species diverge further away over time eventually becoming too genetically different to be able to interbreed, but they are still members of the same clade (what you call a "kind").So evolution is no different from what you describe. So what's the difference supposed to be?

IOW, Dredge was clearly quoting a creationist lie.What are you willing to bet the Dredge never follows that link? That Dredge will just keep himself willfully ignorant of the truth?

Uh, no, that is impossible. A tautology is always true, just trivially true. The rest of your drivel is pure idiocy, which I guess is standard creationist fare.

And you seem to think the opposite. Very misguided of you.Understanding how something works is never useless, whereas ignorance of how it works is never useful.One of the most useful by-products of an answer to a scientific question (ie, "how does this work?") are more questions. In fact, it is a very poor scientific answer that does not produce more questions. Those new questions that you didn't even know to ask before are what direct further research. Without those new questions, science would grind to a halt. Please note that "goddidit" is an extremely poor answer in science because it does absolutely nothing towards answering the question of how things work, plus it raises no new questions thus killing science.Part of the benefit of understanding how something works are clues about how something else works. Which extends a scientific answer's new questions to other related scientific problems. That is most definitely not useless.And eventually somebody does find a practical use for the results of pure research. What about Einsteinian relativity? Pure theory, right? Useless according to you, right? Really? Really?Ever use GPS (Global Positioning System)? Or know somebody who uses GPS? GPS depends on measuring time very precisely, particularly the time that it takes for a GPS signal to travel from a GPS satellite to your GPS receiver. A fundamental problem with that is created by the relativisitic effects on the GPS satellites and your GPS receiver because they are in very different places within the earth's gravity well. For that matter, you see the same effect on the various atomic clocks that maintain our time standard which is then uploaded periodically to the GPS satellite constellation (twice a day, I think, but at the very least once). The various atomic clocks are located at different elevations and hence at different levels of the earth's gravity well and hence are themselves subject to relativistic effects.Relativity is a theory. You would proclaim it to be useless. Ever use GPS or know somebody who uses GPS? Duh?Also, in another message you used that old creationist canard, "Evolution is just a theory." In doing so, you proclaimed your own abject ignorance of science and how it works. Thank you for admitting that you have no idea what you are talking about -- or else you do know better but have chosen to lie because your god can only be served by lies and deception (according to standard Christian doctrine, wouldn't that god be Satan?). Reading suggestion for you: The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage by Clifford Stoll (1989). It is the story of how PhD Astronomy candidate Clifford Stoll accidentally became a computer security expert. He was the subject of a Nova episode on PBS, "The KGB, the Computer, and Me", in which he played himself -- that is how I had learned about him. Don't worry; it's a very easy and entertaining read.That cloak-and-dagger cyber-adventure happened when he was completing his PhD Astronomy and had to work in the meantime as a sysadmin at UC Berkeley. In the book, he describes his oral exams.One professor asked him, "Why is the sky blue?" Simple question to answer? Not in the least! I forget exactly, but it took him between two to four hours to answer that question. Physics of light, chemistry of the atmosphere, and I forget what else.Answering that question taps into all aspects of physics, which themselves are the foundation of so much other physics, some of which have also produced practical technological applications.Do you see a pattern here?

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"

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)

Yes, those are examples of misusing and abusing religion. When they believe that they have the complete truth and know and understand what "God" is, then they have actually lost their way, just as I had quoted St. Augustine in Message 792:

quote:

---

"God is not what you imagine, or what you think you understand. For if you understand, you have failed."

---

Their arrogance blinds them to their own plight. We see that over and over again in Faith's posts.To question is the answer. But they cannot see that.

---

"Don't do what the voices tell you to do! They are not your friend!"
Reese to his younger brother, Dewey

All human endeavors are subject to delusion. Including religion. That is one reason why I can never be a Christian (especially of the fundamentalist variety), because it requires me to believe in human infallibility and that is a camel that is just too impossible for me to swallow.The thing with science is that its findings can be tested, so if errors creep in as they inevitably must, then those errors can be detected and corrected.What about religion? When errors creep into religion as they inevitably must, how does religion handle them? It doesn't! Religion has no protocol for testing, error-detection, nor error-correcting. It just careens more and more off-course. Of course, the Protestant way of handling it is to splinter even further and form new churches, but they still carry those theological errors with them, still failing to make the necessary corrections.Ah, you protest that you have Revelation so your knowledge is perfect. Not so. An online Christian friend once asked me what I believe (I am an atheist and have been for over half a century, but I am not a Christian atheist). I HTML'ized my response and posted it on my site at DWise1's Religion Pages: What I believe. About Revelation I wrote:

quote:

---

Ah, but what of receiving information about the supernatural through Revelation? I tend to agree with Thomas Paine's observation that Revelation is Revelation only to that one individual who receives it. When he tells another about it, then it becomes hear-say, and when that person tells yet another, then it becomes hear-say upon hear-say, and so forth, many hundreds of times over. But I believe that Paine was too optimistic and understated the situation. Having spent my first seven years of college as a language major (German, French, Spanish, Russian, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Old English), I understand something about the effects of language on the mind and on the structuring of thought, even on a pre-verbal level. I would correct Paine's statement by saying that Revelation is not even Revelation to that person directly receiving it, but rather it would have become hear-say as soon as he began to think about it, because his mind would have started filtering and interpreting it. Revelation cannot be improved upon; it can only hope to be transmitted perfectly. Perfect transmission of Revelation within the human mind and from one human mind to another is impossible; our minds and our means of information transfer -- eg, language -- are far too imperfect to be up to the job. Therefore, in human hands and minds and through human means, Revelation can only be degraded. The only way I can see for an individual to access Revelation is for that individual to receive It himself, even though even then it would be degraded by his mind and by his cultural filters, including what he has been taught by his religion to expect of Revelation. Ironically, I believe that that would make me something of a mystic.

---

So then, that is the dilemma for religion. Even if somebody had received perfect Revelation 2000 years ago, every time it got transmitted from one human to another it became degraded, kind of like that party game of "Telegraph" (or "Telephone") where you line everybody up and whisper something into the first person's ear, who then passes it on to the next person and so on until the last person ends up hearing something very different than the original message. Your Holy Ghost story does nothing to help, because everybody that spook helps still ends up getting a different story.So, to reiterate, how exactly does religion deal with its own delusions and errors?

Already happened in the early 20th Century, only to have genetics actually supporting evolution by the 1940's.Surely you have encountered lists of quotemining of scientists declaring Darwinism to be proven wrong. Checking the dates on those quotes you should have noticed them being from the first half of the 20th century. Well, here's the story on that.One of the problems that Darwin could not solve was how inheritance worked and how new traits could arise. As a result, he worked out his "pangenetic theory" which ironically dragged him back to a form of Lamarckism. Equally ironic, he had a copy of Mendel's monograph on genetics in his library, but apparently had never gotten around to reading it.Then around 1900, Mendel's work resurfaced and biologists discovered mutations and started studying them, especially in fruit fly populations because of the short generation times. Well, that resulted in those scientists declaring that Darwin had been disproven, but they were talking about his pangenetic theory, not natural selection, but creationist quoteminers don't care about such distinctions.Then in the 1930's and 1940's, scientists such as Fischer realized that genetics and mutation were the answer to Darwin's problems with how inheritance worked and out that Grand Synthesis came neo-Darwinism which combined classic Darwinism with genetics and population genetics.So, genetics actually support evolution.

Faith, please stop pulling your typical crap. We both know that that has been explained to you over and over again and yet you persist in keeping yourself willfully ignorant.You know I have no patience for the stupid crap that you are pulling, so let's just stop it right here. Learn something!

You really like to throw that word around, "atheistic". I have to wonder whether you even have any clue what it means and especially whether you are able to tell whether something is actually atheistic or not.So then, yet again, explain why you consider that idea to be "atheistic."