Why do people deny evolution?

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Attenborough has said he's an agnostic, but that sounds like an attempt to cover his atheist ass, because his actions certainly scream "atheist"..-

WIKI- "Attenborough has joined Richard Dawkins in signing a campaign statement calling for "creationism to be banned from the school science curriculum and for evolution to be taught more widely in schools"

Too damn right, creationism has no scientific basis and should not be taught in Science classes, the same way that Newton's laws of motion have no place in RE lessons.

1 Reply

The Theory of Evolution is full of holes, gaps, missing links, guesses and hunches yet atheists are trying to pass it off as solid fact.. Smile

"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)

3 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Birds didn't start flying, reptiles did, birds came later.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

You guys are gonna drag yourselves into the same **** we lived here in the US when the Creationists wanted to have their worldview taught in natural science and biology classes. It took several Federal court cases and at least two specific Supreme Court decisions to get these rodents out of the science business.
We have a First Amendment with 2 specific clauses that enabled the deal with the freedom of religion thing (As well as the freedom FROM religion ).

All those court cases cost good money that has caused the various religious "clubs" to retrench and redefine their own missions.

Now the big thing is " education mission bias" because they want to have biology declared an atheistic religion.

Its all a fuckin game and the kids are the ones who suffer.

3 Replies

Most modern Christians share Senator John McCain's view-
"I believe in evolution, but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset I see the hand of God there also"

In other words, OF COURSE evolution happens as creatures compete and adapt to survive, but at the same time they can't do it on their own and need a guiding hand of a Master Geneticist (God) to keep things on track with selective tweaking and culling etc..

"Sorry kiddo, you're on the way out because you'd be too heavy to fly even if we gave you super-duper wings"

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/sub3/jes-dino.jpg

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

The Theory of Evolution is full of holes, gaps, missing links, guesses and hunches yet atheists are trying to pass it off as solid fact

The theory of evolution I always a "work in progress". New facts and evidence replace old stuff when the newer things better fit into the synthesis\.
Admittedly there are lot of holes and stuff, but these holes have been filled to an amount that even Darwin would be amazed at how correct he was.
The arguments among scientists are about "methods" and "biochemical reaction" and " Fossil derivations", not about dogmatic "associations with scripture or beliefs in an almighty God"

Theres too much data and evidence out there that can no longer be avoided or denied. As Pat Robertson says, "Otherwise we look like idiot"
If you wish to argue Theitic direction, that's one thing, but enial of the whole thing, that's just idiotic.

We don't :guess", we "hypothesize" and then test to see what gives.
The studies of the development of bird feathers from feathered dinosaurs is a collaboration between embryologist, paleontologists, geologists, and geneticists.
The "correct ages of the evolving Aves sub order" has been correctly identified within the stratigarphic column. That was a first link into how birds (and their feathers) first appeared and , genetics has been working with the embryologists to understand HOW.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

In other words, OF COURSE evolution happens as creatures compete and adapt to survive, but at the same time they can't do it on their own and need a guiding hand of a Master Geneticist (God) to keep it on track

With that kind of deep insight, all research would cease and wed all just go for a beer.
Naturalim I "IMPLIED" because it opens the entire path or research. We have many scientists who are believers (but in the most part, they mostly have a type of belief of a transcendent (hands off) kind of god of the kind worshipped by Ken Miller -noted evolutionary biologist)

PS-sharing any kind of belief with one like John Mcain is kind of a skeevose worldview.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Its all a fuckin game and the kids are the ones who suffer.

The kids suffer whatever you do when their parents see them as nothing more than demonstrations of the excellence of their own genetic material.

You don't give a **** about the kids, fm, except insofar as you can milk your asserted compassion for them for your own purposes. You just want the little monsters sat in a prison being forced to listen to you silly fuckers spouting your full range of bigotries. You should be paying them not getting paid for enjoying yourself and stealing away their precious time.

Anybody who cared about kids wouldn't have any.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You guys are gonna drag yourselves into the same **** we lived here in the US when the Creationists wanted to have their worldview taught in natural science and biology classes.

I don't think so, we're not very religious here. Most Christians accept evolution anyway, it's only religious nutters who don't, and nobody really cares what they think.

In the European election the Christian party got no MPs and came 16th.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It seems that youre giving another bunch of unconnected assertions without a jot of experience in the matter.

Have you aborted all your progeny? or have you been celibate because women find you offensive?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Most Christians accept evolution anyway, it's only religious nutters who don't, and nobody really cares what they think.

Our "nutters" seem to coagulate into little clots of organisms that , somehow, align themselves with a single political party where they derive political power in amounts much greater than their numbers.
Its a failing of our system that shoots its biggest wads in the primary process.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Anyway--this thread is about why people deny evolution and not about some of you clowns explaining what tough, high-flying intellectual, alpha males you are.

I will never forget Dawkins allowing a camera to follow him down a corridor in his white breeches with his arse crease going from side to side with every stride, knocking on a door, a voice saying "come in", entering the room where the bigshot confirmed his view of himself as if he had not been rehearsed to pretend that the cameraman, the sound recorder, the gaffer and the continuity sweetie did not exist.

I had very little respect for him to begin with on account of him being on his third wife but that wiped out the last shred. What it said of what he thinks of us was an outrage on art and decency for which even my indignation cannot find printable of contumely to do justice to.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

That's not something we have to worry about. Britain is the least religious country in the World, something most of us don't realise until we travel abroad.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You guys are gonna drag yourselves into the same **** we lived here in the US when the Creationists wanted to have their worldview taught in natural science and biology classes.

I have already explained on this thread that we are deeply embroiled in the issue, and some others, relating to a few schools in Birmingham which serve the Islamic community. And there are similar circumstances in other cities.

If you don't read posts here, and I'm certain you don't in any intelligent sense of read, you must have presumed that the A2Kers who you address that remark to don't either.

The US and the UK are not comparable in respect of the subject. It is a measure of your ignorance that you might think they are. Especially after it was explained to you.

How much longer are you going to wave the white flag about whether we are machines or not or whether monogamy is contra-indicated by evolution, which is the very reason it is prescribed by the The Church: inconvenient as that might be for some who are impossible to live with?

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

The Theory of Evolution is full of holes, gaps, missing links, guesses and hunches yet atheists are trying to pass it off as solid fact.

Indeed! btw as all the other 'scientific' ****!
nd i proves my point! schooling makes people dumb, hence how longer....

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

It seems that youre giving another bunch of unconnected assertions without a jot of experience in the matter.

Ten years of my explaining to you that such remarks are worthless, and Q making it even clearer than I did, has obviously had no effect. And that applies whether "It seems that" is omitted or not. The "seems" only serves to gear up the wretched inadequacy of such drivel on a forum where intelligent people sometimes wander.

Like Dawkins with the scene in his movie, it is not the arguments that are telling, as Bryan Jennings said, as I told you. It is the little things in the way of the telling that give the game away.

And that remark, after all the arguments that have been put to you about unsupported assertions, which are always circular, is proof, if it is still needed, that you have not one scientific cell in your body, leaving out involuntary reflexes, and are as thick as molasses near the setting point.

Your second remark is proof that you're floundering now that you are being challenged to put more than a toe in the water. And it plumbs the depths of bad taste as well as being worthless which leads to the conclusion that it is worth being worthless, in your opinion, to get your bad taste up in lights.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

I can certainly understand, fm, your scientific colleague coming on a site pretending to be a Creationist in order to yank on your chain.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Ten years of my explaining to you that such remarks are worthless, and Q making it even clearer than I did, has obviously had no effect. And that applies whether "It seems that" is omitted or not. The "seems" only serves to gear up the wretched inadequacy of such drivel on a forum where intelligent people sometimes wander.

Like Dawkins with the scene in his movie, it is not the arguments that are telling, as Bryan Jennings said, as I told you. It is the little things in the way of the telling that give the game away.

And that remark, after all the arguments that have been put to you about unsupported assertions, which are always circular, is proof, if it is still needed, that you have not one scientific cell in your body, leaving out involuntary reflexes, and are as thick as molasses near the setting point.

Your second remark is proof that you're floundering now that you are being challenged to put more than a toe in the water. And it plumbs the depths of bad taste as well as being worthless which leads to the conclusion that it is worth being worthless, in your opinion, to get your bad taste up in lights.

This all proofs what I am saying all along, we are talking beliefsystems here, that is very very rigid belief systems. Hence I call 'science' a religion.
what it provable is!

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Ten years of my explaining to you that such remarks are worthless

Think about me. Its been 10 years of me telling you that you were a waste of gametogenesis. All you've got is a pack of baseless experience-free opinions of others.

Quote:

and Q making it even clearer than I did, has obviously had no effect.

That's just because youre easily impressed by idiots. Quahog doesn't seem to have made any convincing rguments. In fct hes made no arguments at all.

As to the subject of the "Culture wars". You seem to want to dance around both sides of this issue. Thats been typical of you lo these many years. My only question is , Why do most of the really wackdoo Creationists on A2K seem to resie in the UK.?

The majority of your countrymen must really be embarrassed and , if everyone had your "Limp" unaffiliated views of science, they would make UK look like a bunch of intellectual wimps.
Although highly imperfect, We have several means of controlling the idiot desires of the luddites like Quahog who wants to "Kill off anything about evolution". We have nice Constitutional controls , starre decisis, and education boards whove got the responibilities to dis-accredit or initially refuse to accredit, the schools that want to teach religion as science.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

you have not one scientific cell in your body

WHY? just because Ive concluded that youre an ugly smelly drunk whom women find offensive?
Your professed "Catholic" viewpoints and published creed would not comport with your worldviews on having ones children aborted.

Pesonally I don't give a **** what you do, but I don't do a Pharisee -like pronouncement of my piety as you often do.
Relax and have another lonely Sunday suds and speculate what it would have been like to be some kids father.

2 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know