Why do people deny evolution?

Yes he is.

I probably am as well, since most of what you write goes straight over my head. Still love reading it though.

The question of whether we are machines was raised by Descartes and followed up by La Mettrie and de Sade and was the central focus of the debate which took place after 1859. And still is. And is a question you were asked and which you have not answered.

It is not in the least moronic. Your smear is just a cheap way of evading it.

What Q posts has nothing to do with me.

Is monogamy contra-indicated by evolution science? That's not a moronic question either.

You are hoaxing your followers by not addressing these questions and engaging in cosy conspiracies to hush them up as Darwin did.

That you call them that does not explain their absence in the fossil record.

that's the first time you've asked that. Why not start a thread re: Descartes. This one is WHY DO PEOPLE DENY EVOLUTION?

The question of whether we are machines or not goes directly to the core of why many people deny evolution.

I have provided this thread with 20 reasons why people deny evolution and you have provided none aside from declaring those who deny evolution stupid or moronic. Which are not reasons. Perhaps you ought to start a new thread because you seem to have no interest in this one.

And you claimed that evolution is falsifiable. Will you explain that assertion because I can't see that it is falsifiable?

The subject has arisen in the UK recently although it has not been stated explicitly. Schools in Islamic communities in Birmingham are being put into "special measures" and subjected to unannounced inspections.

The importance of the matter is shown by the very public row between the Home Secretary and the Education minister who are both senior Cabinet ministers and potential Prime Ministers. (Perish the thought!!) And by the main news programmes having been leading their broadcasts with the subject for the last few weeks. And no end in sight.

Islamists will not have evolution. At any price. Thus insistence on including the subject in Islamic schools is a barrier to cultural diversity and a source of extremism. The latest OFSTED inspection, an announced one, of the schools concerned gave them an "outstanding" grading.

The matters being played up relate to art, music, segregation of the sexes in "some" classes, sport, and the inculcation of "British values", such as "**** you Jack, I'm alright." Teaching evolution has only been mentioned twice and only then in broadcasts which few tune into and quickly moved on from in the discussion.

Why Islamists deny evolution I don't know. One of their number explained it to me one time but I could not follow his argument. I did sense though that he would resist evolution by all measures.

What Science wants is peace so that it can fulfill its logic of cultural uniformity.

good for you spendi. Ill bet youre really proud of yourself. If youre afraid to take a side why not just admit it. You cant have the world views both ways.

He must be terrified. What will the moderators do when a respected poster of long standing gets reported by a self centred moron with a Messiah complex, just for pointing out what a tedious little git said self centred moron is?

I think they'll tell you to blow it out your arse.

Your tongue is far up Satan's arse, you're licking his tonsils.

Someone once said to me that there were no stupid questions only stupid answers, but they were an idiot.

Would you be my solicitor in the upcoming libel suit that Quahog will, no doubt, initiate?

No, you want someone good.

I do take a side. Whatever gave you the idea I didn't? Was it that you needed something to say to try to cover up that you are refusing to take sides on two of the most pressing questions relating to why people deny evolution.

What world views can I not articulate both ways? If we understood other world views we might not have so much lethal trouble. Trying to understand other world views is not the same as adopting any of them. And only a fool would think otherwise.

Answer the questions eh? Never mind me. I'm a no account drunk am I not?

Heres a few. You can search em all out on Google. I hope I spelt em correctly.
The first real bird ws in the Cretaceous IBEROMESORNIS

The rest are eamples pf your "flopped" intermediaries from the Jurassic through early Cretaceous.

These are ALL bird-like dinosaurs

ARCHEOPTERYX the earliest of the bird-like dinosaurs , from the Jurassic aged Solnhofen limestones


Others are:

XIAOTINGIA, CAUDYPTERYX, NOMINGIA, ANCHIORNIS, MICRORAPTOR, EOSINOPTERYX These are all bird like dinoaurs , when you look em up youll be surprised at all the different shapes and fether feet etc

theres a bunch more but Id have to go farther on line and look em up.


In the last 20 or so years, (as the use of falsifiability has become the best method of finding fossils of a "right age"), paleontologists and oil field geologists have found a huge number of bird like dinosaurs and dinosaur like birds.
If its all Sataanic fakery, someone has done a really great job at doing the sculpting of these fossils

I like your reference to the variations of the Mustang and Spifire. The cladistics tree of the "common ancestor" was the Spitfire. the Mustang A was a variant with a stupid engine and different wings and a great big air intake. The two planes grew apart in pwrformance and , based upon their shape differences, had different ranges and climbing altitudes.

Birds an bird-like dinosaurs were a good analogy in nature.
As we find fossil cahes after fossil cches, we see the many tweakings that evolution took to select out those new forms that didn't work.

Before you go and make claims about what we don't know, itd be better to do a bit of research to find out what we DO know. I think youll be quite surprised.

MOST Young Earth Creationists hve changed thir worldvies to Old Earth, and many hve adopted "Theistic evolution" as a means of accomplishing all this.

Meanwhile, science just sits there with the fossils in hnd, not sayin too much that cant be readily observed.

Religion? hardly. Theres many many "believing Christian" paleontologists who leave their religions at home when they go to the lab or the field. Im sure many would love to find some evidence of an "Intelligence" but, so far, everything predictable has been based upon environmental changes that are clearly seen in the stratigraphic column of the planet. (We can see what rocks were laid down and when-we don't need an "Intelligence" to help predict)

WHOA, you're jumping onto a higher rung of the evolutionary ladder (like Dawks does) instead of starting on the BOTTOM RUNG and talking us upwards from there.
No kidding, when I bought Dawk's 'Climbing Mt Improbable' some years ago, I thought he'd be starting at the bottom of the mountain and smoothly taking us upwards, but he didn't do that at all, he started at least halfway up the slope, and even then he had to keep jumping chasms and trying to fill them in with guesses and hunches, check out the highlighted bits in this-

"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees.. Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds.. Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees"- (Dawkins, Climbing Mt Improbable, pp. 113–4)

The Mustang was not based on the Spitfire. The Mustang was a purpose-designed ground support fighter. The Spitfire was based on a design for a pylon-racing plane with floats for landing on water--hence the name of the company which manufactured it, Supermarine. The Mustang certainly was underpowered; using a better engine altered its mission capabilities entirely. The only thing which the Mustang and the Spitfire had in common was the Rolls Royce Merlin engine. Otherwise, the Mustang was the most high performance prop-driven plane in history, and the Spitfire could not touch it for ceiling nor operational range. As Chuck Yeager once put it, what the Spitfire could do for 40 minutes the Mustang could do for eight hours.

If they'd fitted long-range drop tanks to the Spit it could've escorted B-17's all the way to Berlin same as the Mustang, but the Mustang was already doing that job so there was no need.
Brit bombers went at night, and as the Spit wasn't a night fighter it'd have been wasted escorting them.
As for which fighter was the best, everybody has different opinions..

"Once you have flown a Spitfire, it spoils you for all other fighters. Every other aircraft seems imperfect in one way or another"
-Lt. Col. William R. Dunn USAAF

"Dunn (1916–1995) was the first American ace of World War II.
Joining the Canadian Army at the outbreak of war in September 1939, he was an infantryman until he transferred to the Royal Air Force in late 1940.
After service in an RAF Eagle Squadron, he joined the United States Army Air Force in 1943"





Dunn's Spitfire

That's as bad as the flagella as foot pump baloney fm. The evolution of the plane is Lamarckian. And you are an opponent of Lamarckianism.

The changes in the plane were willed and in nature the changes are random according to Darwinism.

Which goes to show how little you know about the topic here. Or about which side you are on.

I know which side you're on my dear. Your own.

You have flanneled your way to wherever it is you have got yourself. You're neither a sheep farmer, nor a ship's captain nor a scientist. You have simply woffled a few dingbats out of their wits. And you're trying to do it to us. As you just proved by your convenient foray into Lamarckianism.

You are scared of saying that we are machines and you are scared of saying we are not machines. You are scared of giving the obvious evolutionists' position on human reproductive events.

Hence you bolt into some side issue like a rabbit down its hole when a car backfires. It seems that is how to win respect as a long standing A2Ker.

Thank you Set. I'm sure it impressed the ladies.

yeh I knowall that, but it was designed as a one off based air frame. My point wasn't about airplanes it was about cladistics. A triceratops and a protoceratops had two different times but were of (probably) the same clade (separated by an inlnd sea and some mountains)
Yu cannot deny that the Musstang wasn't a unique design.