Why do people deny evolution?

Oh, Christ, a spat.

Since I first became aware of the word 'microevolution', used in a Discover magazine about a decade ago, I assumed it to be a concept not ending in speciation, that being the first step in macroevolution. When I last studied biology, it was all about 'adaptation'. Now I see where 'creationists' and 'scientists' are light years apart in their definitions.

I have no idea who first used the word; but I have never considered myself a 'creationist'; so this presents me with a conundrum: namely, where do I fit?

OK. I'll go back to my earlier request. Show me the finch not a finch and I'll flinch. The dog no longer canine and I'll bite.

As for finches, I'm assuming they followed the same as all other birds.

EDIT: All of this was in the link I provided to you earlier. You clearly didn't read it.

If you don't ACTUALLY want to know the answers to your questions, why ask them?

What are you doing?

Not much.
How about you??

You're playing with me! If not. I'm watching this movie right now making glances at this phone often.

Oh, ****.

while the concept of macro/micro evolution was developed by Ehrlich it was entirely a gene frequency and "time dependent" . Today, ever since Macroevolutionary changes have been observed within human lifespans, its been refined into a taxa-level criterion. That definition I used was from MAYR's 2000 book on "What EVolution IS".
Jimmy I right and we agree in the concept and definition.

The Creationists have assumed the definition as a position of convenience for them . It allows them to accept such things as adaptive hybridization or hybrid vigor or resistance to drugs without having to stipulate to evolution.
You are still a believing Jehovah's Witness are you not?
I don't understand how you call yourself a non Creationist with that worldview. The denial of evolution is one of the fences of Witness theology.

^^^ This big time.

Creationists love to pretend evolution is of no benefit to society when in fact anyone who has gone to get a flu shot or any sort of resistance has benefited from the studies of evolution.

If I lump myself in with creationists, I could be mistaken for those who believe in young earth, intelligent design, and a host of other beliefs not supported by scripture. It is also why I don't consider myself a fundamentalist. The doctrines of trinity, hell fire, immortal soul, etc. are nothing but prevarications of a power hungry priesthood. I have taken into consideration all you and others have presented in this thread and have modified my understanding of definitions. But my position is unchanged.

"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn"


Being presented with evidence to the contrary of your viewpoint, but upholding your viewpoint regardless is willful ignorance.

That's the most major reason for viewing evolosers as idiots. It isn't difficult to expost evolutionites/evolosers as the idiots they are:

good try. totally "nonbiased eh?". P Meyers gave examples of evidence, he was fit in between a couple of students.

1You have to understand that rocks can be dated as can fossils in the rocks

2When you get over that hurdle you can view the many fosils of "kinds" over geological history

3Most of the fossil record is quite accurately interpreted (We have a few outliers like the most ancient ancestors of elephants )

CRETINISTS, you can always see em with the most entertaining cartoons

And so it is. But what about the evidence in my post on page 6 (third from the bottom--so to speak)?

The only response was one admitting that the poster didn't fancy trying to rebut it.

That post provided evidence for a reason for denying evolution. Thus all posters who failed to respond to it and who continued upholding their viewpoint despite that evidence being presented to them are willfully ignorant.

Hence there is another reason for denying evolution. It prevents you being willfully ignorant. And nobody in my experience was ever quite so willfully ignorant as Charles Darwin, He was an absolute pain in the ******* neck to his nearest and dearest.

It never entered his head to ask them whether they would have preferred him to be an "idle earl" which is a category he much disapproved of.

And he lost whatever interest he had in music. It's worth denying evolution just to avoid such a horrible fate.

I have a speculative hypothesis that Darwin was driven by an unmitigated hatred of the upper classes and its obvious extension to his followers. A raised eyebrow, across a crowded room, from one of the Queen's favourite dukes could put him in his place. And an ego such as Darwin's wouldn't like that one little bit. He was into "expressions".

He had to hate nepotism because it countermanded the survival of the fittest but could not help himself from exerting his own influence on behalf of the rather sickly offspring of his loins, and Emma's.

A common dilemma for evo-shtickers.

And another reason for denying evolution pops up. It avoids looking completely stupid.

And thus. by swerve of shore to bend of bay, we are brought by a commodius vicus of recirculation, to the problem of nepotism and what an evolutionist governing elite would do about it in view of the science, on which the whole edifice of their thinking is based, insisting that nepotism debilitates the species.

you place more stock in your own questions than do others. When you come across merely sounding snide and insincere, what do you think others would chose to do? Id say that most would choose "ignore"

You need to work on your interlocutory,
1do you want to be taken seriously?
2Do you want to remain ignored

CHOOSE 1

Suit yourself fm. I don't give a ****.

But it was a pretty wimpy response you offered there to my post. It flowed as if it was well practiced.

Did it touch a raw nerve? Aaaaaah!!

We can't have touchy little nerves running things now can we? We might as well go all the way to Princess Anne.

The idea that people deny evolution because Noah landed the ark, and shooed all the menagerie of eating and shitting machines back into the wilderness, is a comforting straw man of momentous proportions.

Ladies at a networking coffee morning in the better sort of suburban setting do not wish to be reminded that they are a particulary unusual version of a slug or a reptile. And, as ladies are entitled to Ignore, they will make sure they are not reminded.

Thus another reason to deny evolution is to be gallant and reap the rewards which come the way of gallant gentlemen as a matter of course.

There it is right there for ya, Jimmy...in your own post.

Pay attention to it. It will do you some good!




You are on a roll, now, Jimmy.

All you gotta do is process this stuff properly...and you might get out of that hole you are in!

Two problems, the dating schemes for rocks are flawed, and those techniques don't really work for fossils (YOU are the only person I've ever heard claim otherwise).

And then we now have real radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains coming in and they all seem to come in around 20K - 40K years:

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html



Notice that you don't read claims about dinosaur remains dating to 6000 years or any sort of a Bishop Usher sort of age, i.e. unlike evolosers, the creationists are basically honest. These are blind tests, mostly being done at the University of Georgia's dating service.

Can you not see gunga that you have let fm off the hook with that post? He was stuck with the points I raised. He was reduced to sulking and pouting.

He can easy get going again and his flagging spirits uplifted answering your post. "All seem to come in around 20K - 40K years:" is like the defense line falling over at the snap. It has had the floor wiped with it on so many occasions that the mop is becoming threadbare.