Why do people deny evolution?

Again...the point is moot in that the earth has been warming since the last Ice Age and nothing you can do will stop it. Now, what you are really arguing is that man is causing this warming and to that I say B.S. And no...we are not even acceleratiing it...because it's NOT accelerating.
I dont buy into the eviromentalist whackos hysteria especially since they have been caught lying.
I invite you to read Climatism! and then try to challenge the science in that book.

Again...the point is moot in that the earth has been warming since the last Ice Age and nothing you can do will stop it.

Now, what you are really arguing is that man is causing this warming and to that I say B.S. And no...we are not even acceleratiing it...because it's NOT accelerating.

I dont buy into the eviromentalist whackos hysteria especially since they have been caught lying.
I invite you to read Climatism! and then try to challenge the science in that book.

Sticks and stones...And you base this breaking off AND sinking on what science?

A billion people Gracie? Where do you get this crap?

When you're done and you'ld like to proffer some science to back your "sky is falling" hysterics, I will entertain refuting the offer.

Several structures that distinguish the vertebrates from other chordates are formed from the derivatives of neural crest cells. In their "New head" theory, Gans and Northcut argue that the presence of neural crest was the basis for vertebrate specific features, such as sensory ganglia and cranial skeleton. Furthermore, the appearance of these features was pivotal in vertebrate evolution because it enabled a predatory lifestyle
However, considering the neural crest a vertebrate innovation does not mean that it was created de novo. Instead, new structures often arise through modification of existing developmental regulatory programs. For example, organismal regulatory programs may be changed by the co-option of new upstream regulators or by the employment of new downstream gene targets, thus placing existing networks in a novel context This idea is supported by in situ hybridization data that shows the conservation of the neural plate border specifiers in protochordates, which suggest that part of the neural crest precursor network was present in a common ancestor to the chordates.In some non-vertebrate chordates such as tunicates a lineage of cells (melanocytes) has been identified, which are similar to neural crest cells in vertebrates. This implies that a rudimentary neural crest existed in a common ancestor of vertebrates and tunicates.

It looks like evolution is too hot a topic for some around here.

"But after [the theory of evolution] has been changed a hundred times and it
is still falsified, at some point someone ought to throw in the towel."
Luther D. Suderland, Darwin's Enigma, Revised Edition, p. 39

It takes more intelligence to not believe in evolution,that it takes to believe in it, I have found. Those who are fanatics in its belief remind me so of the church that has kept man in the dark for ages. I am not a Creationists per se, but they have certainly hit the mark on many things by bringing up issues in science that are an embarrassment to the Saganite gendre. But to teach such a shaky theory in schools is putting horse blinders on very young minds who should be able to explore the world for themselves. Quite frankly, this is communistic. Believe ! or else you will not pass the grade. I have read scores of scientific literature on evolution and they begin to all look alike for the same reason - it is what I call the Professor Cory syndrome. I do not know if anyone remembers this comedian, but he would start talking a long-lettered, scientific jargon, emulating his old professors, until he had an audience in stitches but actually believing what he said, whatever it was. No one wanted to admit they really did not know but he made you think you did. And this is pretty much the format of much of science as far as evolution goes. They get drunk with their words and really do not know themselves what they are saying, but with 20 letter words, anything looks good! I intend to prove that the evolutionary theory is one of the biggest hoaxes since the Cardiff Giant, and a test-case in what happens when people are not studied enough in all the sciences.

They get drunk with their words and really
do not know themselves what they are saying, but with 20 letter words, anything looks good! I intend to prove that the evolutionary theory is one of the biggest hoaxes since the Cardiff Giant, and a test-case in what happens when people are not studied enough in all the sciences

Having never been proven in the field or laboratory, it is as much a theory as
spontaneous generation. Evolutionists speak so of it being mentioned in antiquity, but legends, folklore, and more substantial literature in Egyptian. Sumer and Veda.: texts, speak of no such thing. Evolutionists just do what they are good at - twisting words.

Man's pathology and mental degradation is the biggest strike against
evolution I know of and which we will delve headlong into throughout this book.
Similarity does not imply relatedness, a precept evolutionists have been duped by.

Here is another shot at evolution - why did we not develop a better lung if we ran as Australopithecus all over the African savannah?
If we are from Pan troglodyte (chimpanzee) as evolutionists state, he has a worse
respiratory mechanism for the lungs are shorter. Better we should come from Papio (baboon) for his lungs are longer and closer to ours in shape, able to process oxygen better

One of the saddest aspects of science research into the question of man's so-called evolution is that they are not eclectic enough in their studies. They jump to too many impulsive conclusions. Not once (or if there is, a passing remark. Gould does delve lightly into magnetism, but still, surprisingly, sticks to evolution.) in any of the studies by these paragons, Leakey, Johanson, Gould, Sagan,is there any mention of ionization, magnetism, heliobiology, pathology, sitology, embryology, etc. Their studies are remarkably amatuerish. Those who study air ionization are quite aware that this alone will affect the radioactive clock if major flunctuations disturbed the magnetic field. Carbon dating much less fission-track dating would be completely useless. Lucy, instead of being nearly 4 million years old (some say 2 million) could be no more than 400 thousand years old or even 40,000 years if that. An abrupt drop of a million or so volts would drastically affect the earth. Lucy did not become extinct for nothing. The part I get a kick out of is they admit a mammoth reversal of the earth's magnetic field occurred at the time of
Lucy, 3.I-30.O millions years ago and another, the Gilbert reversal 3.6-3.4 million years ago. That is all they say. You would think they would put two and two tegether and think what a monstrosity as Lucy developed at the reversal. No, she is still a part of our evolutionary past! Well, I think the Egyptians and Sumerians were right. 3.6-3.4 million years ago but more likely 450,000 years ago the earth's magnetism flipped, about a million years later, or rather only a few years, it was returned. Time is decay. The slower you decay, thus is time, stop decay, and you stop time. In a group of isolated people screened from the earth's electromagnetic impulses, their 24 hour activity period lengthened to 26.6 hours. There are just too many variables to jump to conclusions and say evolution is the key to our past.
We are in tbe midst of a 'devolution,' just as the ancient peoples are telling us
through their literature. No one has ever seen evolution in the making. You will find scientists with more rounded educations finding faults in it. And, the faults outweigh its merits. My goodness, a second gravitational field has just been found and unknown forms of radiation are being studied of which no one can explain.
Everyday we find something new that is pushing evolution into the class of spats and the Edsel—both ugly dead-ends in the lineages of shoes and cars.