Why do people deny evolution?

@gungasnake,

Under the general scheme fm is promoting the University of Georgia's dating service will be a discreetly organised form of dogging.

Which is quite a tempting prospect I should think.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

He [formerman] was reduced to sulking and pouting.

What's new about that? That's all he ever does one way or other...

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

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.

It didn't provide evidence to DENY evolution. It merely provided evidence as to why we should not act on evolution. One should never try to deny facts regardless of the moral implications.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

You legitimately think dinosaurs are only 20,000 years old?

/facepalm

I'm ashamed of you. Carbon dating only works on things that are less than 50,000 years old because carbon has a half life of ~5000 years. We use other dating methods on rocks of that age. Join the 21st century, lad.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

The question is "why do people deny evolution?". I offered five or six possible explanations. What's your beef?

If you think your reason for not denying it is the one you gave you must think we were all born yesterday. We know your real reason.

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

Evidence, in itself, is often ambidextrous. The universal order presented by believers, while necessary to demonstrate the existence of God, is not sufficient proof. Conversely, the same order also demonstrates the validity of the laws of physics, laws independent of a creator but insufficient to deny his existence.

I have no problem with evidence, so long as conclusions therefrom are free of confirmation bias.

3 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Evidence, in itself, is often ambidextrous. The universal order presented by believers, while necessary to demonstrate the existence of God, is not sufficient proof. Conversely, the same order also demonstrates the validity of the laws of physics, laws independent of a creator but insufficient to deny his existence.

I have no problem with evidence, so long as conclusions therefrom are free of confirmation bias.

That I've got to see when discussing religion!

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

If you think your reason for not denying it is the one you gave you must think we were all born yesterday. We know your real reason.

Enlighten me. What is my REAL reason?

Quote:

The question is "why do people deny evolution?". I offered five or six possible explanations. What's your beef?

And I have no problem with your reason. However, you claimed it as evidence why people SHOULDN'T accept evolution. That is what led to my previous post.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Evolution.

0 Replies

@neologist,

We're talking about evolution here. Stay on topic.

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Evidence, in itself, is often ambidextrous.

Ambidextrous? Ambiguous surely.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

neo said

Quote:

Evidence, in itself, is often ambidextrous. The universal order presented by believers, while necessary to demonstrate the existence of God, is not sufficient proof. Conversely, the same order also demonstrates the validity of the laws of physics, laws independent of a creator but insufficient to deny his existence.

Ive heard it claimed by Creationists that they can use the same evidence to support their worldview. I hve yet to see where it's been done effectively. ALSO, were talking about a whole raft of interlocking evidence that supports a naturalistic view. Evidence such as the fossil record of individual species DOES NOT belie natural evolution of higher taxa. Whereas "creation after their own kind" seems to need to be going on constantly with new species and genera magically appearing.

Other areas in geology and chemistry refute the "Story" of a directed creation , yet fit quite well in a ntural selection theory.

Science, as far as I know, does NOT bother with refuting the existence of a creator, it assumes that one doesn't exist n proceeds along apace.

Not hving any skin in a game by even trying to assert that evidence supports such a guy, is what Creationists try to do mostly. I don't know of any attempts at Creationist"research" that has not spilt milk all over its vest.

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

Two problems, the dating schemes for rocks are flawed, and those techniques don't really work for fossils

You are all full of **** gunga and you know it. Accuracy in all radiometric dating techniques is less than 1% +/-. Ive never EVER said that we date the fossils and the rocks by the same methods , that's only idiocy that Cretionists would attempt.
We date the rock sequence in which a fossil lives by tracing an upper and lower correlative unit that can be dated by sequence methods or radiometry. We also can date the purely sedimentary rocks by sequences of Paleomagnetism (when lined up, paleomags look like bar codes. Even Creationists try to use these methods in their Biblical archeology. (I wonder hy they use a method that they would wish to poo poo).
The fossils themselves are dated or sequenced by cladistics and structural elements within the unit. If such compouns such as osteocalcin or Ca Flourapataite exist, we can find qualitative dates.
The real dates come from comparing the two techniques.

Gunga, Im sorry to say that you really don't have enough knowledge to even be in this argument

The technique of "radiocarbon dating is invalid for dinosaurs, I think even you know that. A 40k dinosaur showing C14 would be a huge find and the world ould be sending out scientific teams to find this deposit an see what prehistory says .
You, Im afraid, come from the wprld of "Coast to Coast AM" radio with George Nori. (Even he doesn't take himself too seriously hen some of these "Creation scientists" are scheduled. Ive listened to taped programs where these "new Geology" guys show up. Where do most pf them work as real geologissts? The only guy I know who even has a job is a trained pedologist who goes waay out of his areas of expertise to preach about Creationism. He worked at Sandia and was pretty much given a wide berth because of his silly beliefs. (Sorta like Mike Behe at Lehigh-he can teach microbio but he now stays awy from the departments that deal with earths history)

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

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

Lets say that the radiochem lb ws honest but the "Scientist" who submitted the samples had an "Agenda".
Right at this point several thoughts, including fraudulent "Doping" has been discussed by the QA groups.
Alo, we know that the lab removd the C14 "pulse" equivalent to the 1955+ atmospheric data, but were not too ure that cosmic radiation hs been addressed.

The "New Geology" stuff is total **** written by a bunch of know-nothings who want the science world to revolve around some myth.
Ever wonder why the US is slipping in science literacy from High schools?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

neologist wrote:

Evidence, in itself, is often ambidextrous.

izzythepush wrote:

Ambidextrous? Ambiguous surely.

You said it. And many present it.
But I am talking about mutually agreed upon evidence.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Did it touch a raw nerve? Aaaaaah!!

Hardly, as anyone can see I have great fun on this line. I will attempt to answer any REAL questions in which I feel competency abloom.
You just give yourseld waaay too much credit when you pose inanity as "spendi pearls"

A day Id shrink from the lights of you is when Im cold and stiff. I rather have fun reading your pablum . Im sure not gonna dignify it as a real comment. As far as gunga, Ive hd him swinging on a hook for several years nd he hasn't come up ith anything new since 2004.
"New Geology" indeed. Its a magazine for folks like you.

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

We're talking about evolution here. Stay on topic.

Evidence is your word used here:
http://able2know.org/topic/229102-11#post-5527351
Try to pay attention.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

neologist wrote:

Evidence, in itself, is often ambidextrous. The universal order presented by believers, while necessary to demonstrate the existence of God, is not sufficient proof. Conversely, the same order also demonstrates the validity of the laws of physics, laws independent of a creator but insufficient to deny his existence.

I have no problem with evidence, so long as conclusions therefrom are free of confirmation bias.

Frank Apisa wrote:

That I've got to see when discussing religion!

I am certain that everyone here has a confirmation bias. I know I do. It requires effort to look at someone's contradictory post with an eye to its possible validity. To that end, I think I succeed better than most.

Some, however, proclaim themselves never wrong.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

neo wrote:

Evidence, in itself, is often ambidextrous. The universal order presented by believers, while necessary to demonstrate the existence of God, is not sufficient proof. Conversely, the same order also demonstrates the validity of the laws of physics, laws independent of a creator but insufficient to deny his existence.

farmerman wrote:

Ive heard it claimed by Creationists that they can use the same evidence to support their worldview. I hve yet to see where it's been done effectively.

When I made this statement, I had particularly in mind Newton's demonstration where he had constructed a scale model of the solar system and used it to illustrate to one of his contemporaries the concept of design. The only flaw being, though design is necessary, in itself it is not sufficient. Indeed, if anyone had irrefutable proof or disproof of God's existence, we would have surely seen it by now.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Evidence is your word used here:
http://able2know.org/topic/229102-11#post-5527351
Try to pay attention.

Evidence for evolution is not "ambidextrous" (not sure why you chose this word) and thus your statement that it can be taken both ways does not apply here (hence why I said stay on topic).

Try to keep up.

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know