Why do people deny evolution?

Oh, How strange and extremely insane are the ways of the evolution-fundamentalists.

Two things, No, of course Piltdown man, and pepper moths and other rubbish was made to convince people of the way electronics works!!!!

man o man talking about brain dead idiots!

But let's face it. Would some one try to convince fundamental muslims ( or fundamental christians for that matter) to convince them their religion is wrong?

LOL

Nope.


It is EXACTLY the same here, with evolution fundamentalists like fm and other girls!!
They twist and turn whole words and sentences so they can keep their
extremely stupid religion intact!
IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS TRYING TO CONVINCE A RELIGIOUS NUT HIS RELIGIOUS IS STUPID.

Won't work of course, well same here, theye are so far gone they can't see straight anymore. Let's face it, it is a kind of neurosis! They really can't see reality anymore for what it is.

I guess you guys keep drawing out a fool like Q, just to illustrate how a fanatic distorts and grows in hysteria as time drags on.

That's waaay more thinking thn h deserves. NO, I just listen to his madness and thank my lucky stars that I listened to my science teachers.
Quahog at his best,

Wise observation by Schopenhauer, and it is precisely the path followed by Evolution. It's interesting, don't you think, that "Climate Change" has taken a different path? While it certainly has been ridiculed (by a minority), almost out of the chute it was accepted as being self-evident by a great many (probably a majority) of people. No violent opposition yet because it doesn't really shake the foundations of anyone's core beliefs, but if it ends up shaking the foundations of people's ways of life it could. At this point I don't see that happening though, because despite the degree of its acceptance as a self-evident truth, there is far, far less acceptance of the more dramatic proposals for dealing with it.

I think a continuing shift of focus from prevention to adaptation is inevitable, unless there is some phenomenal breakthrough in alternative energy technology in the short term. That seems unlikely though.

I don't detect much in the way of a self-consistent central tendency in what people mean by "climate change" or its discredited precursor "global warming" , and I see very little that could be called self-evident in any of it.

Earth's climate has been changing throughout its geological history, and so far without any clearly defined cyclic repetition.

The trends over the past two centuries are so far small and, apart from a correlation with CO2 concentrations, not that well understood.

In terms of the collateral effects of the remedies so far proposed, it is not at all clear, that, in terms of the likely effects on humanity, whatever is going on is worth fixing.

There is a remarkable lack of consistency in the proposals of the zealous advocates of prompt authoritarian action to deal with it, whatever it may be. Current alternative energy sources are easily three times as costly as conventional ones, and there is no evidence of any breakthrough technologies on the near-term horizon. None of the advocates I know of has faced that issue squarely. The proven potential of nuclear power generation to bridge the economic gap for emissions-free power is beyond doubt: despite that climate change fanatics are generally unanimous in their opposition to nuclear power.

There may be a problem out there. but what is being advocated to deal with it certainly doesn't make sense, The concrete actions being taken to implement their recommendations, even by apparently committed nations (such as Germany) are woefully inadequate, economically unsustainable, and contradictory (in shutting down nuclear plants). Major emitter nations , including China, India, Russia (an, on a per capita basis, Canada) are ignoring it all.

Wind power, photovoltaic solar power and electric cars will never solve the problem, despite the insistence of their committed advocates. Solar powered photosynthesis, as a source of free hydrogen, might offer a solution in a few decades, but no one addresses that or a means to bridge the gap to it.

In short, none of the committed advocates of this "self evident" phenomenon appears to be considering rational long-range approaches to it.

It is all ready here! Surpressed technology of course!
And the same people that propagate AGW are the same that surpress these
techniques! Why? In one word CONTROL.



and furthermore, despite all these postings here, no evidence for evolution to be seen!

Doesn't that say somthing? Yes it does!


And of course they can't provide any evidence because it s very simply untrue.



But it is a though thing for some!

as climate change has been defined, the "sciences" seem to gang up upon a anthropogenic cause, despite geological records. While we seem to be on a climate upswing, I am more concerned from past geological records that indicte we shall (soon or abruptly pwrhaps) be enjoying a dip in world temperatures and sea level declines and continental glaciation similar TO THE PREVIOUS 4 "ICE AGES".

Nature alaways bats last.

As temps rise, the "conveyor belt" of the tropical to high latitude streams will be dilute and will pprobably slow-down or stop. THAT will be REAL problem, entire latitudes will be population free and those beneath those latitudes will be more like perma frost zones of tody. Weve got good examples of ancient "fragipan"( perma frost) soils as far south in the US from Trenton NJ to Harrisburg Pa, to St Louis nd Denver to Redding California.

Im sorta like Georgeob on this issue but unlike him, I feel that we should be working on ways to create "greenhouse corridors to live or travel , such as surveying the continental shelves that will become emergent and will provide living and ag areas for at least 10000 years at a time. From past evience, evry ice age hs happened rather abruptly when the climates went from mild "interstadial" conditions to rpid advnces of continental glaciation.

We may lose all of N USA, UK ,Scandanavia, Much of Russia ND HLF OF China and Canada but we will gain huge tracts of emergent lands along the present continental shelves and slopes.(Itd make a good "recipe sci fi tory" that could stir up imaginations about "New Glacia"

You just proved to me you more stupid then I thought AND you can't think logic and/or critically. Figures of course it is your education that is in the way.
Please start unlearning rubbish.

Quahog thinks Im stupid, oooh callee calay,frabjous day.

I'm not among those who recognise it as a self-evident truth, but since so many do it's interesting to apply Schopenhauer's principle to it, and, obviously, it doesn't match up. Whether or not that means it's not really a truth, like evolution, is debateable, but I do think the fact that it was so readily accepted at face value, by so many; so quickly is less an indication of its self-evidential truth as it's alignment with pre-existing notions: Oil and coal are evil, solar and wind power are good, the US uses a disproportionate amount of the world's resources, and people have way too much stuff.

Certainly it wasn't self-evident that the world was getting dramatically warmer or the climate dramatically changing, and the reluctance or downright refusal to rely more on nuclear power as an alternative to oil and coal reveals a thread of political prejudice that isn't logical when considering an already well developed energy source and the need for a ready solution to a supposedly catastrophic problem.

There is enough competing science to make the matter unsettled, but anytime any issue has such a strong political or ideological (not to mention monetary) component, I go into Doubting Thomas mode.

Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

Hehehehe . . . excellent.

97 % ???? where did you get THAT number!

There is NO CONSENSUS at all!

wow, are we in the presence of genius or what?
Saw through Wilso's screen play did ya?

ya know, when Clemen's said about "opening your mouth and removing all doubt"----He somehow had you in mind.

well, where is the consensus? Nowhere!!!

But besides that, consensus is of no use in scinece of course.

There's a huge consensus on A2K regarding the nonsense you spout.

No doubt though that you and 97% of the world's scientists are hoping the "doubters" are correct, right?

And, btw, that 97% figure is nuts.

Not really. It's simply more science.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

I think the core issue here is just what is it that many scientists agree on. The international consensus reports issued over the past six years indicate a general agreement that there has been a very modest amount (o.5 deg C) of global warming over the past 80 years, and that it generally correlates with atmospheric measures of CO2 concentrations. Not addressed is the fact that the warming appears to have stopped over the past two decades, and that there is no established consensus on the more dramatic forecasts of the various doomsayers, including the demise of the Gulf Stream and sudden changes in various terrestrial heat transfer mechanisms.

In short there is broad consensus on modest warming but no consensus on the more dramatic forecasts of doom that we often see accompanying these discussions. It's relatively easy to get a paper published forecasting (for example) sudden shifts in ocean currents, but very hard to get a scientific consensus on the efficacy of a numerical model for ocean transport that is already known to be unable to accurately forecast the next occurrence of El Ninho in the Pacific.