Why do people deny evolution?

quahog says:

Quote:

How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve?

Why don't you actually study some evolutionary theory, and you'd find out. These are not unanswered questions. You just refuse to look at the answers. Try Wikipedia for "evolution of the eye", or "evolution of birds", for example. Think "many small steps over a very long time".

ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY

Asserting because one finds something difficult to understand it can’t be true.

This fallacy is based more on lack of understanding than lack of information. Often used as a means to distrust science on the basis of it being highly technical and difficult to put into layman terms, this fallacy is the standby of regressives who wish everything to remain the way things used to be. To avoid changing one’s mind, the person merely avoids advancing their understanding of the topic at hand.

The big bang theory makes no sense. How can there not be a time before the big bang? Scientists just made it all up to try and explain away God’s creation.
Something being complicated does not necessarily make it untrue. personal incredulity - thinkIf a claim is difficult to understand, it is the job of the listener to educate themselves before coming to a conclusion as to the truth value of the assertion. Until then, the conclusion should always remain at “I don’t know”.

The human mind is so complex, you can’t conclude there is no soul released after death.
On the contrary! This fallacy is commonly the basis for ghost and other “afterlife” beliefs, since the people holding the beliefs don’t understand, or refuse to acknowledge, how the mind is a demonstrable product of a physical brain. Once the brain dies, the mind no longer exists. This, naturally, can be demonstrated, as in the example of when people have lost their personalities when they suffered serious brain trauma. The mind, if separate from the physical brain, would be unaffected by brain injury. Asserting the brain is a complex machine which is not fully understood, which a true assertion, ignores the evidence of mind-brain connection being highly understood.

I don’t understand how life can just move from bacteria to humans all on its own. There had to be an intelligent designer behind it!
One of the staples of the creationist (also known as intelligent design) proponent, this argument relies on ignorance of the process of evolution in order to claim a magical designer must have done the work. This assertion, of course, is not a logical conclusion to not understanding evolution, as there is no reason to think a god, if one even existed, had any hand in the evolution of life on Earth.

It is all to do with you taking yourself to be a body that is born and will die.

I didn't take myself anywhere.

Your language is based around this premise.

My language has nothing to do with my body.

It's all in my mind.Your statement isn't a contradiction. It's just nonsense.

There's nothing confusing about what I'm say.

Of course what you are saying is confusing. First you say that I think language comes from birth and death when I said no such thing and think no such thing.

It is simple talk. It is your mind that is confused. Confusion and mind are synonymous. You problem is you take the inside to be outside and the outside to be inside.

I guarantee you are not inside me. I wouldn't create such nonsense..

Your thought and feelings are external but in your unawareness you identify with them and take them as personal.

By that argument I am your thoughts and feelings so why do you disagree with your own thoughts outside you?

All you see outside is actual constructed inside you head.

Good thing I don't see you then.

It is a well know scientific fact of modern science today,

I wonder which science journal you got this from. Could you enlighten us since you are in my mind and should therefor be under my complete control?

Why don't you actually study some evolutionary theory, and you'd find out. These are not unanswered questions. You just refuse to look at the answers. Try Wikipedia for "evolution of the eye", or "evolution of birds", for example. Think "many small steps over a very long time".

Synopsis for those who don't want to reald all of elease1's posts:

Your language is based around this premise.

Learn to read to understand. I said "based around the body"

all bodies take in information

My stance is that it is all in dreaming.

An appearance cannot be consider real because it disappears. All appearances are born of the imagination.

Again learn to read to understand. that which is outside is only an appearance. I am not in the appearance. When you look at something it appears in your brain. You are looking at a signal.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Generally speaking you have just uploaded a video FBM. Seven year olds are doing that on a daily basis.

I think before I get engaged with an anti-intellectual wingnut. Is that close enough?

Boy, for something that is only in my head you sure try to spout a lot of nonsense.

You are now arguing that the body is your premise? It seems I read fine. You just don't understand your own statements. The one thing I am taking from all this is that you are a complete fool.

If it is all dreaming then why did you just say the body takes in information? I don't think I am the one with the contradiction problem.

How can I look at something that is only my imagination? On one hand you say I can look at something and then you say I can't. If your "premise" which does NOT mean body, is that everything is in my mind and nothing is outside my mind then you would be in my mind. I guarantee I would never create such nonsense.

When I exercise intelligence I find that your statements are filled with nonsense that you don't even understand.

Learn to read to understand, the subject cannot be an object in the consciousness no more than the body of torch in its beam that it shines.

Again. Learn to read to understand I said your language is based around the premise, the proposition, the idea that you are the body "now you are saying that the body is your premise"

Your language is based around this premise.

Learn to read to understand. I said "based around the body"

Your eyes are only receptors they receive signals and project. Your external world is created inside your head, real sight is insight, but this sight is neither out nor in. It is the mind that creates these distinctions of In and out there is only seeing the seer and the seen are contained in seeing.

That would be your imagination. You constantly defeat your own argument ellease. Stop arguing with the signals in your brain. It makes you look bi-polar.

You are clearly saying based around this premise means based around the body. That means the body is the premise. There is no other way to interpret your statements without ignoring what you said.