Summations Only

This is how your quoting should have looked: So you can nest qs quote boxes however deeply you would want to. Click on the Peek button of this message to see how.Doing it correctly will make your replies much clearer ... except for the poor quality content.Edited by dwise1, : " ... except for ..."

Cut the bullshit!! Why do you consider it atheistic? Be very specific in giving your reasons. What is obvious is how far your head is wedged in and how deeply deluded you are.Of course, if you truly think that you are not deluded, then you can explain your reasoning in having made your determinations. If you cannot, then you have never actually thought it through and you are deluded.Show us that you are not deluded.

Thank you for confirming what I've been suspecting, that you have no clue and don't know what you are talking about. You have never given any of this any thought, but rather you just regurgitate the bullshit lies that your handlers have been spoon-feeding you. You cannot respond to any questions about what you say because you are simply incapable; you don't know what you are talking about.I've seen that so many times since I started discussing "creation science" online in the late 1980's. The easiest way to anger a creationist would be to try to discuss his claims with him. It took me a while to figure out that it was because they didn't understand their own claims. They were just repeating something that they had heard, that sounded convincing to them even though they didn't understand it, and that they therefore could not possibly discuss. So they'd try to change the subject, come back with bullshit hyperbole, and act just like you're acting.I'll bet you don't even understand what "atheistic" means. I've seen it used in so many ways by creationists, even to the point of labeling the vast majority of theists and even the majority of Christians as "atheists". At the extreme pole of the spectrum, I've seen it used to describe all other positions that do not agree fully with the creationist's own particular extremely narrow theology, such that even many creationists would be considered "atheists".So why don't you explain what you mean by it? You refuse to, I think because you cannot, because you yourself don't understand what you mean by it. You seem to just use it to disparage anything or anybody that disagrees with you in the slightest bit. Like everything else, you haven't given it any thought.Think about this question and try something new, give an honest answer: What would be the consequences of evolution being true?Also, again that question that you avoided: When errors creep into religion as they inevitably must, how does religion handle them?We both know full well that religion does not correct those errors, but rather promotes them to Gospel.

The forum's search function shows that you've been blathering on for a rather long time about "applied science". Yet again, you display your ignorance of science and about reality. So if science can result in a tangible product, then you are satisfied. If not, then you feel that you can freely ignore it.Your supposed distinction between pure and applied science is meaningless, though understandable. You think in terms of theology and Bible study. In theology and especially in Bible study you are free to cherry-pick to your little heart's desire. Cherry-picking is when you are free to pick and choose the data you want and to ignore what you don't want. You point to the passages that support your position and are quite free to ignore the ones that contradict it. That's the wonderful thing about the Bible, that you can support just about any position possible with it; eg, both pro- and anti-slavery factions used the same Bible to support their own positions, often with the very same passages.Science is not quite as obliging, which I guess is why you hate it so much. You cannot cherry-pick scientific evidence. Unlike in theology, it has to all work together.I think that that is your problem. You think that you can pick and choose the scientific findings that you like (eg, the ones supporting computers and flush toilets) and also ignore the ones you don't like. No, it does not work that way. It all has to work or else there is a big problem.I even presented an actual case in Message 772 which you chose to completely ignore. Einsteinian relativity is considered by most to be very abstract, pure science, not at all part of your special "applied science." GPS position solutions depend on very precise timing solutions of the satellite signals arriving at the GPS receiver. That timing depends directly on the relativistic effects of being in different places within a gravity well (for the past two decades, I have been working on systems incorporating GPS receivers, so I am familiar with this topic).The bottom line here is that applied science depends directly on pure science. So your supposed dichotomy between pure and applied science is pure bollocks.You can cherry-pick your religion until Judgement Day and get away with it, but you cannot cherry-pick science!

You know, we have a name for "applied science": engineering. Funny thing about some engineers: they hate science and scientists, especially scientific theory. One of the funnier things about those "scientists who were creationists" lists that creationists keep posting is that many of those "scientists" were actually engineers. Plus I've seen some lists that include a half dozen theologians as "scientists" and even a couple "food scientists" (check out O'Reilly's Cooking for Geeks, which should still be available online as a free PDF).On active duty I was trained as an Electronic Computer Systems Repairman, which led to my working on and earning my computer science degree at my permanent duty station. To supplement my technician training, I also took a number of electrical engineering courses for fun. In the electrical circuits class, one chapter covered convolution and its use in analyzing the response of a circuit to an input. That input was a delta function whose curve has an area of one (ie, its integral is 1) and its Δt is zero, which makes its amplitude infinite. Now, that's a tricky concept and our instructor, a professional engineer, told us how it was engineers who came up with the idea and then laughed at those stupid scientists who had to take 100 years to prove that the delta function was valid while engineers continued to use it without a second thought.I also saw the same attitude on the job. At one company that designed and manufactured computerized greenhouse controls, the chief engineer, being strictly an analog guy, depended on me to explain the digital data sheets to him. One common task was to take a new sensor and determine that conversion factor for output voltage to whatever it was measuring (eg, temperature, light, humidity). I remember one in particular in which the data sheet only gave us a few values. So there I was trying to work out a conversion formula, the theoretical approach, and the chief engineer came in, made a disparaging remark about theory, and instructed me to do it as a table look-up (ie, an array of 255 values that we index by the output voltage output by an ADC). "We don't need to understand it! We just want to use it!"An engineer doesn't need to understand why a design works; he just needs to get it to work. Reportedly, most of Edison's inventions were just him trying every possibility until he accidentally found one that worked. On active duty, our training NCO told us that nobody understands how electronics work and that it was all just FM ("fucking magic"), but we had our test procedures to tell us how to fix it. It was during that time that I read Isaac Asimov's first Foundation book in which the Foundation exported its technology to its barbarian neighbors as a religion. You would send them your candidates for the priesthood, the Foundation would train them, and they could then operate the equipment and perform basic maintenance: to start up the fusion reactor, you say the proper prayers with the appropriate hand gestures and push that red button.Of course, when those procedures do not exist and you have to actually figure it out yourself, then it would really help to know how it works. For example, I was training on the printer and there was an interlock circuit that the TO didn't explain very well, so I started analyzing it. Because almost everything we worked on was digital, we worked from logic diagrams (gate logic) instead of regular electronic circuit diagrams and therefore most of us forgot most of the electronics we had been taught, mainly transistors. This circuit used a lot of transistors, but knowing that they'd be operating at either saturation or cut-off conditions I went through and figured out just how that circuit worked. I started explaining it to a sergeant who was amazed that somebody knew how transistors worked. Of course, the alternative would be that nobody could have figured that circuit out.Or when you need to come up with a new and novel design. That's when the engineer really needs the scientist, as much as he will deny it.So you don't want to understand how anything works? Fine, I'll leave you to spend all day sitting there with your thermos trying to figure out how it can tell whether to keep its contents hot or cold. Yes, that is true. It is also very true that religious explanations can be wrong. In fact, you know that is true because you can point to all the other religions and their explanations and denounce them all as being wrong.The difference between science and religion is that science knows that it can get something wrong, so it also knows that it needs to test its results and detect those errors and then correct those errors. Furthermore, science and scientists are very motivated to find and eliminate errors. 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. And it is strongly motivated to ignore its errors, or at the very least absolutely no motivation to eliminate errors. 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.I started on a web page which is not ready for publishing yet: Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists. Basically, the goal of science is to learn more about nature by trying to make a new discovery or testing a previous discovery. Scientists test each other's research thoroughly because their own research depends on that other guy's research so they want to make sure that that other guy got it right. And if a scientist is discovered to be performing substandard or dishonest work then he loses his credibility and his standing in the scientific community.It's very different for creationists whose goal is to convince both others and themselves. The only test for another creationist's work is whether it sounds convincing. Even if they know that a claim is completely false, if it still sounds convincing then they will continue to use it. If a creationist is found to be doing sloppy and/or dishonest work, then that will have absolutely no effect on his standing in the creationist community so long as his claims sound convincing. The only thing that will cause a creationist to lose standing in the creationist community is if his religious beliefs don't seem quite right.Edited by dwise1, : Added story of analyzing a printer circuit. Tweaked delta function story.

Yes, which is why science constantly tests its conclusions, detects errors, and corrects those errors.And do remind me again how and when religion tests its conclusions, detects errors, and corrects those errors. Oh, that's right, you never have responded to that question which I've asked, what, four or five times. Because, unlike science, religion doesn't. Not ever. Yet again, that is not part of evolutionary theory, but rather a logical conclusion. You already know that, so what you just posted is a deliberate lie. Why do you "true Christians" insist on lying? According to Christian doctrine, which deity is served by lies and deception? Five letters, starts with an "S" and ends with an "n". Whom are you actually serving? Except that that's exactly what you are doing and not at all what we are doing.Evolutionary science can explain exactly what it is talking about in detail.Do please explain in detail how "goddidit" can explain how anything in nature actually works. And I do mean in detail and how it works. That is exactly what your argument has been, that if it is not directly applicable to practical purposes, to "applied science", then it is bullshit that must be ignored.You are not free to cherry-pick at will! If you choose to apply one criterion against accepting one theory, then you must also apply that exact same criterion against all other theories.Your refusal to do so and to specifically target one particular theory exposes your true intent (religious bigotry) and the fact that you have no valid argument against that theory.

Have you always been such a fucking idiot, or did you have to work at it? If the latter, then I can tell you that it's not worth the effort.That quote is directed directly at believers who think they have God figured out.Do you have God figured out? Completely figured out? Really? Then show us! Show us how you could achieve what no human could ever possibly achieve. Show us!

Oh please, stop your idiocy now! And try to learn something before spouting even more such nonsense!Here is what you are "replying to", what Taq wrote in Message 785: Basic physics, Dredge. Basic physics! As in practically the first thing that they teach you in physics, kinematics, the study of motion.You have the distance traveled as a function time, displacement. Differentiate that with respect to time and you get the velocity. Differentiate that with respect to time and you get acceleration.In the reverse direction, start with the acceleration. Integrate that and you get the velocity. Integrate the velocity and you get the displacement as a function of time.Basic, basic physics.Taq was talking about displacement, but you switched it to velocity. You thought that nobody saw you palming the pea, but we did see you. You are trying to pull a dishonest trick here, to lie, to deceive.Which god are you actually serving? According to standard Christian doctrine, which god is served by lies and deception?

Along those same lines, their "atheistic" "evolution model" consists of all the ideas of origins that are not part of their "creation model", which is pure YEC. Hence their "evolution model" consists mainly of "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern" as Dr. Henry Morris of the ICR wrote to me. Although he did not say it, that would include all the Christian ideas that do not conform to all aspects of YEC.So that "evolution model", consisting mainly of theistic ideas including Christian ideas, is "atheistic."Which begs the question of how Dredge defines "atheistic". Since 1970 I have seen it applied many different ways, including anything that does not comply with their narrowly sectarian beliefs. I've come across fundamentalists who would probably consider Faith, a Calvinist, to be an atheist just because they consider her theology to be wrong.Dredge needs to explain his understanding of what "atheistic" means. And how he defines evolution; I strongly suspect that his idea of evolution is that false "evolution model" in which it is built up as much more than just a scientific idea.Of course, he repeatedly refuses to clarify those things.

You never did respond to New Cat's Eye, you lying hypocrite!Is that the only way you can defend your pitiful god, though lies and deception? Everybody knows your god, the only one who depends on lies and deception: Satan.

So explain it to us so we can discuss it.

If you need a translation, then you are mentally incapable of discussing it.From the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, we have the following line (from memory):This news is for all the higher-developed life-forms of the Galaxy. For the rest of you guys, the secret is to keep banging the rocks together, guys!Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Uh, excuse me, but just what the fuck are you talking about? That you are a god???Well then fuck you very much you fucking stupid god! Your doctrines are all complete bullshit!!!Fuck your stupid bullshit.

Similarly, I've heard theories described as "bundled hypotheses", or at least as consisting of bundled hypotheses. The metaphor is like that of a rope (the theory) which is constructed by bundling together many individual filaments (the hypotheses). You can lose a few filaments without losing the rope itself.This was in the context of creationists trying to disprove evolution through death by a thousand pin-pricks, trying to disprove one or a few individual hypotheses and then declare victory. I guess that's because of their biblical inerrancy mentality in which finding even one single error in the Bible disproves the entire book and their entire religion as well. In contrast, finding a wrong hypothesis has no effect on the theory itself and that wrong hypothesis needed to have been weeded out anyway.Edited by dwise1, : rope metaphor

No, I did not become a creationist.However, that was when I started studying "creation science". Back in 1970 during the "Jesus Freak" Movement (we were at Ground Zero of that, Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, Calif) was when I first encountered creationist claims where were obviously false (ie, general claims of evidence for Noah's Flood, the one about living fresh-water molluscs carbon-dating as being thousands of years old, and the NASA computer that found "Joshua's Lost Day"). At that time I wrote creationism off as false.Then in 1981 Duane Gish's travelling snake-oil show came to town, which I could not attend because I had duty that evening. But it did get me thinking that, since they're still around, then maybe there might be something to it after all and I should look at their evidence. So I started studying "creation science" and looked for their evidence, only to find that they had no evidence and that their claims were all false, misrepresentations, and even outright fabrications. The further I researched, the more I found creationism to be nothing but lies and deception.More than three decades later, I have yet to encounter a creationist claim that is not false and/or deceptive. And extremely few creationists who are honest.BTW, it was a creationist who clued me in on how the only figure of merit for a creationist claim is that it sounds convincing. He used a lame old creationist claim that had been refuted many times before, so I asked him how he expects to convince any of us with something so lame. His reply: "The only reason you don't find it convincing is because you are not already convinced."That same creationist had to finally admit that a claim he was using was false and that he wouldn't use it anymore. Then a few months later I saw him using that exact same claim on a new-comer.So then do please enlighten us: why do creationists continue to use false claims even when they do know those claims to be false (because they have admitted that they are false)? Why does the fact that their claims are proven to be false means nothing at all to them? So what? Every church makes that same claim while claiming that the others, including the Catholic Church, are wrong.You did not answer the question: 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.If you disagree and claim that religion does have means to detect and deal with errors, then please present them. IOW, answer the damned question! Stop being so dishonest!