Why do people deny evolution?

@Krumple,

Well in spooky action the nonlocal element can be seen in an action. This nonlocal element in spooky action is the equivalent of relativity in below c action. So spooky is an action with an above c nonlocal element. The relativity in below c action is then spooky .

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Well in spooky action the nonlocal element can be seen in an action. This nonlocal element in spooky action is the equivalent of relativity in below c action. So spooky is an action with an above c nonlocal element. The relativity in below c action is then spooky . God is the creator of information and is then also the relativity in information. God is the relativity in spooky information.

1 Reply

@martinies,

martinies wrote:

Well in spooky action the nonlocal element can be seen in an action. This nonlocal element in spooky action is the equivalent of relativity in below c action. So spooky is an action with an above c nonlocal element. The relativity in below c action is then spooky . God is the creator of information and is then also the relativity in information. God is the relativity in spooky information.

Where then is the information that a god exists? There is NONE. You are making stuff up and positing them as if they are facts. All this stuff about spooky action just makes you sound like a nutjob. I think you have no clue what you are even talking about.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Well does that sound crazy. Locality coming into existance from nonlocality. Seems like logic to me

1 Reply

@martinies,

Nonlocality can be seen to have an effect in spooky action. So why should nonlocality not be presenting below c action. Seems reasonable to me dude.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

You never knew about Ken Ham? Boy have you been missing out.

Duh-huh. Creotard par excellence. Laughing

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

neologist wrote:

The central issue here is belief. In the end, one must believe speciation to be valid. Or, one must advance some other explanation. Whatever you arrive at, belief must be the product of consideration void of desire for license or expectation of reward. ...

InfraBlue wrote:

What does license and reward have to do with speciation?

Nothing. But, as you can see, that's not what I said. Note emphasis.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

You never knew about Ken Ham? Boy have you been missing out.

Read about him. Never read anything by him. 2 sentences to reverse peristalsis.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Its not so much belief, its not accepting the facts as presented

BELIEF--Conviction of the truth or the reality of a thing, based on grounds insufficient to afford positive knowledge, Faith. In science, you can either accept what a large body of workers have discovered or repeated, OR if youdesire, you can repeat the discoveries yourself.

Where do you want to go on your first field trips?

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

neologist wrote:
The central issue here is belief. In the end, one must believe speciation to be valid. Or, one must advance some other explanation. Whatever you arrive at, belief must be the product of consideration void of desire for license or expectation of reward. ...
InfraBlue wrote:

What does license and reward have to do with speciation?
Nothing. But, as you can see, that's not what I said. Note emphasis.

Right, "belief." You said one must believe speciation to be valid and that belief must be the product of consideration void of desire for license or expectation of reward. You're tying in speciation and desire for license and reward with belief.

At least that's how it reads.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

2 sentences.
Remove first
Second still applies. Should apply to any belief.

3 Replies

@neologist,

Ya talking about sartori or finding the essence of the self in zen. The essence of self is nonlocality amidst the local self. There is an essence of the nonlocal self amidst the local identity of the self. Its about finding the nonlocal kingdom of heaven. You know the one jesus was going on about. Its ya own consciousness with out local attachment.

1 Reply

@martinies,

Hmm. I get it now. There's no 'e' in martinis.
Drunk

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

2 sentences.
Remove first
Second still applies. Should apply to any belief.

That's precisely why I'm asking you what does the belief in speciation (you say that one must believe speciation to be valid) have to do with license a/o expectation of reward (you say that this should apply to any belief)?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Well, the initial post was a reply to belief in speciation as a component of the evolutionary hypothesis. Since I do not consider speciation valid, I can't accept evolution as here presented.

1 Reply

@neologist,

You failed to address the question.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Perhaps you failed to ask a rational question.
I don't think you read all the relevant posts.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Ok neo your an ozzy. Therefor you are in an up side down frame of refence relative to myself but non the less c is the constant limit that ya consciousness is stationary to.

1 Reply

@martinies,

Consciousness has the same reference frame as a photon and that is zero or nonlocality. God is ya own consciousness and ya stuck inside it for eternity. Arguing the piont will not change that fact.

0 Replies

@neologist,

You're talking in circles.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know