Why do people deny evolution?

You should starting writing in e-prime, works much better!
(according to me that is )

Then your sentence becomes:

Your 'insight' according to me and seen from my belief system, are seen by me as pedestrian and also seen as 'tired' by me.

See the difference, mate?

But 'science' is a religion indeed!
(according to me )



LOL I have alot of fun reading some postings here! Thanks!

Good joke!!

Thanks!

fm intelligent? hmmmmmm , How on earth can it be to be intelligent to accepet a theory for which there is no evidence????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


Dipshit? Ohhhh That's why he loves fm postings ! He like to also throw AH's around!

Riiiiiiiiiiighhhttt!!







The world is mad indeed.

Seems Quahog makes his entire life around ignoring what he cant understand. Evidence for most all scientific theory is easily seen and understood. BUT, it does take a bit of effort .
SO, what is Quahog

1Stupid?
2or just damned lazy

Okay mate, tell us which came first, the chicken or the egg?..

You know how to keep a Fabulini busy??

(See below)

You know how to keep a Fabulini busy?

see above.

The soaring atheist intellect of Richard Dawkins-

Dawkins said Nadia Eweida, the check-in worker whom British Airways tried to prevent from wearing a cross round her neck, had ‘one of the most stupid faces I have ever seen’.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2101256/Richard-Dawkins-How-man-high-IQ-low-views.html

Dawkins IS sort of an asshole, that's true. He gives you religious types something to shoot at since you have nothing in the way of any hard scientific evidence to support your worldviews.

"Cannot" is an absolute fm and needs no "really" and Dylan said--"wasted words that prove to warn that he not busy being born is busy dyin' "

And "canot" is a typo like somebody assumed "quit" to be.

Besides you, and others here, have with some fanfare, announced putting me on Ignore which you now tell us is impossible.

Leonardo being "naive" is a bit far out. And unnecessary. I hope you don't announce such a solecism in social gatherings unless you enjoy being the focus of quizzical stares.

Obviously you don't even know what the actual subject of the most famous portrait in the world is. Your shuffling around in art shops is the sort vacuous assertion which you even kid yourself with.

It's good fun watching Q wind you all up.

did I ever have you on ignore so that it affected either me or ye? NO

The ignore feature is not fully mature in that, in order for it to work as designed, should strike all posts by you from my sight. (And me yours).
As far as you correcting my writing , please don't bore me with your "erudition". As I see it, you write like someone with severe ADHD . .

Obviously you've not perused anything by Leonardo or youd be able to see that he was really nothing more than a man of his times and not, the type section "Renaissance Man". He was a great draughtsman, but a fairly lousy scientist whose bulk of ideas were mostly wet. Of all the things we confer upon him, the only STEM contributions (IMHO) he made are for the initiation of "blueprints" for use in design/construction. Before Leonardo, design plans were mostly unknown

Q only winds up his chums. Nobody else really gives a crap what he posts. He's a sort of blank slate that gives evolutionists a platform from which to explain evolution to the ones who are interested in learning.

Most of A2K's atheist community have made thousands of posts over the years but are still atheists, so as far as their spiritual evolution is concerned, they haven't evolved at all..

"These men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed.." (2 Peter 2:12)

You have said that a few thousand times fm. Answers, in terms of human utility, have been provided for you a few times by myself and you neither take issue with them nor accept them and just blithely carry on blurting out your silly dogmatic mantra.

We do not understand the nature of gravity, electricity or magnetism but we have found ways of using them to our advantage. We do not understand the nature of religion either but we can use it.

Hence there is as much evidence to support a religious worldview as there is for a scientific worldview in terms of utility.

And a religious worldview is ready to answer the question of whether we are machines which you, and your fawning claque, are not. A religious worldview is ready to answer questions about the organisation of reproduction which you, and your fawning claque, are not.

In a scientific worldview I very much doubt whether you, or any of your claque, would be allowed to breed and as for owning a wife--forget it. Nor would you be allowed to own property or pass it on to your unfortunate descendents who came about in what Juvenal called, correctly, a juddering operation.

You're just a bunch of silly sods who know nothing about evolution but are obsessed with discrediting Christian morality for reasons I am tired of rehearsing but which stick out like an early morning erection.

I am something of a passionless man I must admit. I take an evolutionary view of the opposite sex much, I imagine, as a stallion does when selected mares are bussed in to his quarters and stay just long enough to get the job done thus avoiding any unnecessary expense.

Married men banging on about the science of evolution is enough to make a cat laugh. I bet you lot send ******* Christmas cards out.

When are you going to answer the main questions? The fact that you are running scared of them defeats the point of A2K and proves you are trying to hoax us all. Trolling to be exact. All the time.

I'm not a "religious type", I'm simply a Jesus fan, and it beats me why atheists don't like him, they must be nutty or perverts or commies or demon-possessed..
As for Dawks, it's as if God is deliberately USING him to show what dickheads atheists can be and make them a laughing stock, so thank God for Dawks..

The man is a JOKE, for example count the number of "guesses" and "perhapses" in his highly detailed scientific explanation of how flight evolved, arrived at after years of careful study-

"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)

So according to him, the early earth was full of creatures without wings hurling themselves out of trees and getting splatted on the ground, and other creatures without wings going around hopping all over the place like demented crackheads..

I responded to you "math proves evolution can't exist" post here
http://able2know.org/topic/229102-106#post-5687673

I notice you still aren't willing to actually discuss the math involved.

I still wonder why you would think there are only 10^23 organisms on the planet when there are 5 times that just in and on humans.

Dawkins's "guesses" are worth many times the religious assertion that "Jesus said it and that proves it" crap.
His manners are often crafted to be as insulting as is necessary to get his opponents to actually listen to his arguments. His training in biology is certainly worth several Dr Sarfati's or Ken Hams.
In order for his arguments to be clearly refuted, they must be understood and my biggest problem with Dawkin is that he credits people with intelligence. Our discussions with obtuse people like Quahog prove that spoon feeding of evidence and facts cannot not be overestimated. Dawkins may be an asshole but hes our asshole. And hes certainly no uneducated fraud like Quahog.

I know it is simple to take an argument ad extremis to try to achievean absurd point like "birds hurtling themselves from treetop", but since we have all the temporal- fossil evidence of bird DEVELOPMENT through time, and we can easily see the origins of asymmetric flight feathers from interactions of specific genes, Dawkins, in all honesty, is just saying that we weren't there to see a bird take flight (or at least an extended glide) so we can only guess ( and its an honest guess). That is totally unlike the Creationist ID view which states unequivocally that "they know that birds were created all fully formed and ready for work", and "all these fossils are just vis plastica by a playful god" cmon that sounds like fact-free bullshit doesn't it?

We have perfect examples from artificial selection as to how we can manipulate bird genes to "create " birds with beak teeth and non flight feathers (feathers that are all symmetrical in shape)> This is done by futzing with the genes.
SO, in many respects I have to agree with Dawkins message.
He is being honest and represents a scientific view that is pretty certain but not 100% certain of steps involved in evolution. He doesn't state "without a shadow of a doubt" In fact, science has really never gone after the religous viewpoint until the ICR and Discovery Intitute had openly attempted to teach Creationim AS SCIENCE IN BIOLOGY. Otherwise, We pretty much leave you guy, alone. It seems that the religious (and seriously racist) guys like you, (the erzats religious guy spendi), and the mental midget quahog and the tinfoil hat general, gungasnake are those whose entire lives are built around some irrational WAR ON SCIENCE.

I make a damn good living at environmental geology and exploration geology. If Im a fraud, (pssst , just don't tell my clients). Of Course, Im sure if you did theyd say that"if you can do it better based on some Bible thumpery, you gotta do it better than the Farmerman so we can be richer. Can you do that?"
They only care about returns and doing it safely and cleanly, Show em that your way is better and they'll beat a path to you.
(PS: I don't think Im in any danger of losing clients based on your worldviews)

weve been held up with car trouble on the damn hybrid batteries in Willington Conn. So weve got the little bastid fixed. Its batteries and dilithium crystal Is now ok. About 6 hours to home.

I will look into it later, but you are missing the point.
A LOT OF MATH shows evolution is really impossible.

LOL

farmerman said THAT?
Wow! Well, I really can't see his postings anymore.
Had to go 'cold turkey'!

But I can tell you from where I am sitting "Ignore' does work!

Wow! Tell me edgar , can you speak for someone else? you know the answer?
And I am not interested in learning??? wow! That is a good one.
However you do have a point, I had to UNlearn a lot , and I mean A LOT, of crap that I was given by schooling and the universities. In hindsight...what a garbage!
If I knew then what I know now....ah well...... you won't get it anyway.
To 'learned' LOL