Why do people deny evolution?

I think there is something bothering you.

After thoroughly examining this thread, I must say it is my #1 place to come to for a laugh. Its amazing how the discussion will actually begin making sense, but then there is a disagreement and for the next 6 or so posts hatemail and slander appears. Learn to consider an idea before throwing it away because of a biased viewpoint.

Also, JimmyJ, you have some excellent points. But you accuse other of the same fallacy you commit. Debasing an idea without knowing much about it.

Overall, JimmyJ is the best debater of all of you.

Blimey!! Have you not tried observing passers by on busy high streets? Fox News is pretty funny too. High heels on the end of long silk-stockinged legs being crossed and recrossed in a mildly provocative manner whilst discussing the slaughter in Syria or the need for more competition in certain industries with the ad breaks carefully co-ordinated with the needs of other providers.

If this is your #1 place for a laugh you are missing the larger joke.

I think of composition in a similar way that other people think of constructing bird tables or going to the tailors for a fitting.

It is much the easiest way of passing the time I find.

How do you pass your spare time James. DIY?

I am quite sure I have nothing to learn from you. I can't imagine how anybody would not take the same view.

You could learn a good deal from me (as exhibited by your lack of scientific knowledge).

You could learn quite a bit from Spendi. He's very au fais with le mot juste. Exhibited, really? Demonstrated or evidenced would have been so much better.

Will I be able to compress contentless assertions into little neat blurts like that one?

A scientific sensibility is required before scientific knowledge can be understood properly. The latter without the former and it becomes nothing but a weapon usually in the service of justifying infractions of the Christian moral code and that is very scientific.

We are born with a scientific sensibility and it is knocked out of us as we develop. In your case James it seems to have been through the tight nip of an industrial rolling machine often enough to remove all traces of it.

I don't care to know how to make nothing sound like something and/or sound clever. I prefer real knowledge.

Exhibited: Displayed deliberately

I see no problem with my use of exhibited, but thanks for your attempt at criticism.

The Christian moral code?
/facepalm

Spendi's favorite devise is to turn a thread around until it's all about him. He wants the focus any place but science.

I don't think you know what real knowledge is, you're way too arrogant to bother finding out.

Knowledge:
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject

I knew this. Thanks for your attempted criticism though.

Like I said, you're way too arrogant to bother finding out. You seem to think scientific knowledge is the only real knowledge. Just as well Winston Churchill didn't have your outlook in 1940, or we'd all be speaking German now. He was someone who knew the power of a word.

If you'd bother to look you'd see that Spendi's given an object lesson in obfuscation and ensuring that the debate is on his terms. He lead you up the garden path, but you let him do it. Now instead of asking yourself how it happened, and more importantly why you let him do it, you come out with some horseshit about real knowledge, stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening.

If you weren't so arrogant you might have learned something.

I must have missed something.

Once I realized you were going to blather on I stopped reading.

The definition of knowledge I posted wasn't "scientific knowledge", but the definition of "knowledge" in general. Again, thanks for the attempted critique.

How do you derive that idiotic conclusion when I had just explained science for you? Are you really so desperate that you feel the need to scrape the bottom of that barrel?

The threads that are all about you, and those aspects of your daily doings you feel moved to write about, demonstrate clearly that you don't know what a scientific sensibility is. I leave most of that stuff well alone because of the tenderness of my heart.

In what way was the content of my last post anything to do with me? Why don't you dispute the post?

Your last post must have been all about you because it wasn't about anything else.

Great comeback dipshit!

I do not obfusticate izzy. I look for the clearest way of communicating an idea which is acceptable for A2K. I can be a lot clearer in the pub with those who are familiar with my conversation.

And I don't try to ensure the debate is on my terms. I try to ensure it is on scientific terms as this is a science forum. The only reason I can think for you saying otherwise is that you think my terms are identical with science's terms. Which is true as near as I can make it.

Will you show me anything I have said anywhere which was not on science's terms? There's 10 years' worth to go at.

It has **** all to do with me. Nobody can do science when it has the slightest bit to do with them. That's what's wrong on here. It has everything to do with these others and in particular with their little dickies. And it was the application of science which provided ample evidence of that in thousands of conversations. I had not thought it to be the case mind you. I thought, in the blessed naivete of my youthful years, that I was discussing such matters with men of principle and conviction but as gossip trickled out it became apparent that going into bat for evolution strongly correlated with serious infractions of the Christian teaching on dicks and cunts. 100%. "Where have you been my blue-eyed son?/Where have you been my darling young one?

It's an observational position requiring that decades be spent in the same place, going to the same pub and running with the same set. You don't get much scuttle-buck with mobile people. Perhaps that is why they are mobile. If there weren't some buildings in the way I could see the house where I was born from my bedroom window.

The effect was apparent in Media as well. All you had to do was find out a bit about a commentator and all his opinions were explained. Take the 3-wived Emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford and onetime Oxford University's Professor for Public Understanding of Science as a typical example. I bet his nick-name is Dickie.

Fancy getting bloody married when you have rendered the term meaningless by your own actions. Pressure from you know where in the interest of security I suppose. Under the cosh. Serially.

And what interest do I have in agreeing with the Christian moral code? I fought the jagged bit of that harness as hard as anybody. I think I have developed a sympathy with the little lads I see strapped into baby walkers, usually asleep or sucking a lollipop, and feel a bit sorry for them the way things are going.

Did you know that sunspots are dwindling and that the last time that happened coincided with the mini-ice-age when markets and fairs set up on the Thames where I assume rents were not due. Months at minus 10.at lunchtime. Year after year. Imagine that izzy. And the banks wobbly. The ME in flames. With some virus stoking up somewhere. Antibiotics in a race with it and predicted to lose.

That was an interesting post, @spendius
But what are you attempting to communicate to us? It seems to be random events/things that do not seem to 'add up', as the saying goes. Please give a mickle bit more of your reasoning for it.

Thank you