Why do people deny evolution?

That seems a good enough reason to me Finn. When the revolutionaries in France converted the cathedrals and churches into Temples of Reason they took great pains to eradicate the symbols of religious nuts.

And they prepared an intellectual weltanschauung which, after a struggle, gave Darwin the confidence to publish his trivia collection.

Most of the evolutionists on here are fully focused on the nuttery of the religious. After all, shagging the next door neighbour's wife while he's on nights can hardly be a sin now can it? At worst it is merely a lapse of good taste. If certain signs have been forthcoming it might even be a duty. It is nuts to say otherwise. Shaw's Jack Tanner would say so.

I assume you consider yourself a person who can actually think and is honest.

What other reasons are worthy of consideration?

I have no idea of the point you are trying to make.

Do you really think that a belief in evolution predicated solely on the basis that "religious nuts" do not is a good reason?

One of the points I tried to make is that we have no evidence that you are a thinking person, and an honest one to boot, any more than anyone else is and that if you think evolution enthrallment signifies that you are then you are marking your own exam paper and letting your head run away with the result.

And it is getting pretty tiresome.

I do think that a belief in evolution is mostly predicated upon the inhibitions the religious nuts apply to sexual behaviour. What else could it be when the subject is so simple, so boring and so trivial except to experts specialising in the matter as a career and there are none of them contributing here? In which case "solely" is more accurate than "mostly".

One professor said that the idea of evolution would not have raised an eyebrow in any other culture but a Christian one.

The scuttling, lily-livered flight from uncertainty is inevitably accompanied by evasions and as doubt is beaten away an inhumanity prospers employing a range of pedantry and bigotry commensurate with the limits of intellectual capacity in each case.

Well that was pretty clear evidence that you are not the "thinking person" I believed you to be (what honesty as to do with this is beyond me). It's, rather, evidence that you are a kook or an obsessive contrarian. Which is truly tiresome.

Why FM continues to encourage your nonsense is also beyond me.

It's because he loves it Finn. He pretends he doesn't but he does. He's been out in his gas guzzler twice he has told us about looking to take the kooks on. Once a religious meeting house and then at the car park gates of a Creationist theme park. Picketing with placards.

And he admitted the other day that he sometimes finds my posts entertaining. I certainly do. If I was typing all these posts without it entertaining me I would check in to the nearest nut-house.



Do you mean you have been deluded all this time? Which is probably inevitable if you use "thinking person" as a label and fail to provide the phrase with any meaning. And associate yourself with it as you go. It is generally approved of to be a "thinking person" so if one can associate oneself with the term one might be a generally approved of person. The corollary operating equally efficiently.

It's like IQ which doesn't measure intelligence except that particular and minor aspect of it which is exhibited by the testers. They have a club. MENSA. Mental excellence noodles slowly atrophying. And they make sure everybody knows. Usually within five minutes of being introduced to anybody. If they haven't got a MENSA tie on.

So if you will explain what a "thinking person" is perhaps we can move on. Without an explanation it's like pinning a medal to your own chest.

You're just not as clever as you think spendi, and I'm not going to get dragged into a debate on the definition of a phrase you used in reference to me.

If FM actually enjoys this endless, pointless and ridiculous back and forth on evolution, that's his failing. It really is tiresome and I usually take great pains to avoid getting caught up in the fun you two seem to be having.

If you reject the notion of evolution, good on you. I really couldn't care less. Every now and then I will see someone make a ridiculous claim about why people don't accept evolution, or why they do. If you are in the vicinity, taking on the latter is likely something I am bound to regret.

Tilt away Don Quixote, tilt away.

I'm still trying to recover my composure, Finn, at you taking issue with contrarianism and writing of it as if it is a disease or something.

It's what got us here.

Your post gives the lie to your claim to find the discussion "tiresome". I used the word to describe your giving yourself esteem by pinning labels to yourself.



You used the phrase "thinking person". Not me. In 10 years on A2K you won't find me using it and I'll define any word I do use. Why are you refusing to define words you used and putting out flim-flam instead.

I do not reject the notion of evolution. I'm the only evolutionist around here. Scientific stud farm reproduction doesn't bother me.

The rest of you are using evolution to prop up an attack on the Church because it disapproves of your dick-work.

You sound like you have embraced a new orthodoxy. I can assure you that you haven't. It's something you're toying with. As a good contrarian might as a starting point. You can't even field a candidate never mind get one elected.

I actually do. Maybe if I weren't as "up to date" on the info and its meaning, Id get bored like you.

as is one of the major problems with or education system, we don't demand excellence anymore. Its merely self esteem that matters.

SO, whatever you care not about , is of no interest to me.

What's the correct evolutionist position, fm, on the abduction of the Nigerian school-girls. It would seem on the face of it to serve the purpose of evolution as a healthy exogamic process.

Would you agree?

You didn't need to search your memory of the last 10 years, it was within the last 24 hours or so.

I have never used evolution as an attack against any religion or church. I don't attack religions.

Good, because, likewise, it's no sweat off my nose if you enjoy this endless muddle.

Pardon me, however, if I expressed amazement that you do. Since it didn't hurt you self- esteem, I guess I really have nothing to apologize for.

After all, Mephistopheles is the Patron Saint of skeptics.

Anything is a "muddle" to the uninformed. Im still laughing at youre assertion about evo being "effective"

But you always use religion as a half assed attack on evolution. ANyway, Thomas the Apostle was the ptron "saint" of skeptics. Naming Mephistopholes is just another typical religious douche baggery comment from your keyboard.

I never attack evolution either. Show me where I have.

I may have attacked smug, condescending assholes who use evolution to attack religion, but you will be hard pressed to find proof of your assertion.

I didn't post the bit about patron saints, so maybe you should reconsider who the douche bag in this exchange actually is.

So the Bible is not bullshit when you need it not to be.

Only Goethe was a bit of a scientist and obviously takes second place in your mind to a character dreamed up by goat-herders.

What about an answer to the question fm?

Laugh away.

You really are one of those smug evolution purists who for some reason insist that evolution can't even be talked about in multiple contexts.

Again, if human beings didn't perceive evolution to be effective, we would not be talking about it. If it didn't effect the rise of Homo sapiens to our current status, it would be, at least here on earth, unobserved.

Even among your own little club you hardly speak for all evolutionist, but laugh away.