Why do people deny evolution?

Also stop pretending to be the Temple of Set. Thanks.

I mean, stop knowing who I am, actually. Stop chasing my pen name. I'm answering questions here.

See: English ----->Latin

Good for you mate, you've probably already noticed this thread is full of weird characters straight out of Macbeth..
"What are these, so withered and so wild in their attire that look not like the inhabitants of the earth and yet are on it?" (Act 1, sc 3)

Now you're replying to yourself. Jesus christ, who created this lunatic?

Too bad kuknut can't see how dumb he is. It would embarrass most siblings and parents.

He's full of himself, and don't know the difference between Greek, Latin and English. Sad ******* idiot!

no..I'm replying to someone else obviously. I just didn't want to waste time scrolling back. These things are obvious. Stop wasting my time. Stop wasting a board with your useless fights and bickering. Obviously I just didn't want to scroll up. When are you and your mentally handicapped friends going to be worth scrolling up? Never.

so far no one who came onto this thread has been able to verbalize anything that even comes close to being a convincing argument as to why they deny evolution.

I can prove that devolution takes place--just read the series of posts where Keokuk there is talking to him-/her-/itself.

I was in Keokuk, Iowa once't . . . i have no plans to return.

good geode country around Keokuk. No food worth recommending though.
Passin through is a good plan.

We would go through there when i was a kid to go visit my aunt who lived in Wisconsin. Apparently, it was easier to drive up through Illinois, cross the river, drive north through Iowa on the River Road, and then cross the river again into Wisconsin. I was just a kid, what did i know. We would stop at this Mormon operation south of Nauvoo on the Illinois side and buy buckwheat flour which my grandmother would use to make pancakes. They do well with cheese and wine, too, apparently. Buckwheat flour, though, is not a sufficient attraction to want to go back.

The reason I don't accept evolution theory is because I find freedom is real and relevant in the universe. A correct theory about origins can only be phrased in terms of decscribing the decisions by which a thing comes to be. And organisms look as they were chosen as a whole, through sophisticated ways of choosing, rather than through many different decisions accidently.

It is evident that an organism develops into adulthood as a whole. There is certainly a representation of the whole grounded in the RNA. And if there is a representation of the whole adult organism, then it is likely that varieties of whole adult organisms can be chosen. So to say the RNA becomes to be undecided, and in this undecided state it is not the case that all mathematically possible combinations of RNA present themselves, but only combinations which represent whole adult organisms present themselves to be chosen.

Also a young earth is by no means of the table. Those who think that a young earth is of the table do not understand how choosing works. There is no priority for the universe starting out simple, or the universe starting out complex. With the initial decision all configurations of the universe are equally likely. Once the first choice is made, then any next choice is combined with the previous choice, so then the possibilities around what has already been chosen are more likely. So it means the earth and people can be created suddenly at once without any prior history.

The 13 billion year age of the universe is then error, and instead what scientists are measuring is the distance of the universe now to the universe consisting of just 0. There are lots of things now, if you take aways something, then you get closer to only 0 existing, so this distance to 0 has a measure to it, and this measure is what scientists mistake as the passage of time. Scientists are pointing to a singular 0 as what the universe starts out with, but if the universe starts out complex, then the 0 state universe would be measurable just the same.

Evolution theory is phrased unethically in that in it's phrasing it proposes as a matter of fact that organisms love living, survival, reproduction. Although the mathematical models of evolution theory are without this ethical fault, very clearly evolutionists become to be spiritually defiled on account of evolution theory, by regarding love as a matter of fact issue, instead of as a matter of opinion. Evolution theory is the main cause of nazism and communism, which were relatively popular at universities more than with the population in general. Although ofcourse people are already naturally predisposed to the sin of making what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact issue, the original sin of knowledge of good and evil. Evolution theory is also the main cause of the "new atheism" ideology now.

What evolution theory did in the history of science and society is 1. surpress all knowledge in terms of freedom to replace it with knowledge in terms of being forced, including surpressing knowledge about how people behave in a free way. 2. crushed subjectivity of people, generally competing objectivity against subjectivity to the destruction of it, instead of accepting both objectivity and subjectivity are valid. You will always find it is evolutionists who are saying that God does not exist for lack of evidence, and say that love and hate are real because evidence forces to the conclusion that they exist. These are properly matters of opinion, not fact.

What value evolution theory has is to view an organism in terms of it's survival and reproduction.

You must be joking fm. I have provided 20 odd reasons why people deny evolution and you have not responded to one of them.

I realise that you found them all beneath your contempt but what you deem to be beneath your contempt is of no use to this thread because you will be deeming them beneath your contempt to provide yourself with an excuse for having evaded them and at the same time maintained your scientific credibility at the level it has always been which is zero.

At least once you might have shown us why a particular one of my 20 odd reasons why people deny evolution did not convince you. But a complete silence is not your style. Anything refutable you will have a go at refuting and so it is safe to assume that you couldn't refute any of them and thereby confirm their possible validity.

I gave another reason in my post quoting Gibbon: a name Setanta drops into his discourse now and again to demonstrate his history savvy. Which is, like your scientific credibility, zero. I took a year over Gibbon and one thing it taught me was who hasn't read it.

When you are frightened of saying that we are machines and frightened of saying we are not machines where else can the measure be set except at zero. Nowhere in fact. You have a foot on either side of a widening chasm and there will come a point when a hair on your balls is the nearest part of you to the centre of the earth.

The food in some dump in Iowa is a much safer subject. You can keep your feet together with that. I recommend it.

btw fm. I did notice your devious use of "they" rather than "people".

I merely try to articulate what others think from my experience, my reading and from logic.

Try answersing Syamsu. There are reasons in Syamsu's post that I have not mentioned. Get your phenomological head round that.

I think it would be a revelation if fm starts to write in e-prime!

you've obviously thought that you can just bluff your way through with crap that doesn't even make sense.
Do you even know what RNA's function is? I thought not.
actually this is incorrect. sequential tissue and organismal development and neotony of organs is what nature has preferred

science says "wrong again" The earth's age is clearly and measurably known. The evidence of its age , if you choose to deny it, is not bothered by religious assertions. The earth still is as old as science has determined it to be.



MAybe spendi can translate this for me. Its gibberish and without any real mening. Are you a bot?

It's simple fm. Evolution proposes we are machines. Evolutionists cannot be spiritually defiled because the concepts H refers to are not part of evolution and play no part in its processes. They are ideas and not substance although the idea of ideas is also not substance either.

In evolution biological mechanical reflexes are all there are.

I have two questions to the evolution adepts.

1. the bee and the flower etc has to both start at exactly the same time, in evolution.
How does evolution deals with this?

2. a host and a parasite (Of which there are a lot!) has also start at the same time in evolution,
how does evolution deals with this?

evolution is really getting unbelievable! it is a string of unbelievable and mathematical impossibilties, that is for sure.

Yes, Dawkins is a typical lying atheist, he says a god wouldn't have made the mistake by wiring up the eye "back to front", but biologists have pointed out to him that it only "appears" to be wired up back to front, yet Dawks refuses to admit he was lying--

"For the retina to be wired the way that Professor Richard Dawkins suggested, would require the choroid to come between the photoreceptor cells and the light, for RPE cells must be kept in intimate contact with both the choroid and photoreceptor to perform their job. Anybody who has had the misfortune of a hemorrhage in front of the retina will testify as to how well red blood cells block out the light. …The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy"
http://creation.com/book-review-of-dawkins-climbing-mount-improbable

What gibberish! Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. Ethics is a human concept that has sociological categories and is not consistent throughout history and by individuals.

There you go fm. Next time you feel ethical try to remember that.