132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 03:23 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I won't be feeding the troll any longer. Go wallow in your diarrhea and have a good day, Bubba.


Ah, the easy way out! And a AH, of course.

Quehoniaomath -Setanta: 1 -0 Wink
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 03:51 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I won't be feeding the troll any longer. Go wallow in your diarrhea and have a good day, Bubba.

You are correct. This guy actually is a troll. Talking to him is a complete waste of time. It just enables him. If everyone ignores him, he will probably go away.
Syamsu
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 04:32 pm
@farmerman,
...you very obviously have about 0 knowledge of anything behaving in a free way, that it has alternative futures available which are anticpated, and one is made the present. I also have relatively little knowledge about it because it is simply not taught in school how free will works.

But you have a miserable attitude towards any knowledge about it, which is quite odd considering that you live in a democracy where free will plays a major role in the system of government.

In any case, it is a character flaw that you are ideologically opposed to explaining how things work in a free way. Why wouldn't there be sophisticated ways of choosing occurring in the universe, why would freedom be irrellevant? It makes no sense for freedom to be irrellevant.
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 04:39 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quahog, you old fraud. This "scientific Dissent from Darwinism I actually a correct statement (But its meaning is purposely obscured.

1.Its listed as an "UPDATE" That is true, its an update of a Discovery Institute flap sheet based on an"appeal to authority" . IT dates from 2001 and was the brain child of Richard Demski nd Phil Johnson (the rats of Intelligent Design).
Their appeal to authority was carefully worded to ask a "loaded question"to a bunch of scientists (MOST OF WHOM HAVE NO DOGS OR EXPERIENCE IN THE EVOLUTION CULTURE DISCUSION).
The loaded question, as ferreted out by Barbara Forrest ,who presented the counter statement in the DOVER TRAIL, specifically questioned whether DARWINIQN or NEO DARWINIAN "EVOLUTIONARY THEORY" was valid. Scientists are usually an honest bunch and most of these bio and geo scientists therein were being honest to a fault. OF COURSE we don't avow felty to Darwinian thought because weve lerned so much more about the process of evolution in the 150 year since that bullshit statement was offered. Several of the scientists had issued clarifications that,stated, and I paraphrase" Modern evolutionary synthesis recognizes that Darwins conclusions on natural selection are part of a series of valid evolutionary mechanisms but are not exclusive mechanisms."
Based upon all new evidence the scientists polled were being honest and most resented being "Quote mined" once again.

Jut Google "A scientific Dissent From Darwinism" and get ahold of a rather longish debunkery of the whole thing in the "TQLK ORIGIN" archive.

Im juwt surprisd that Quahog is resorting to gungatricks or posting **** that is 15 years old and has been suitably debunked. Besides being a gullible moron youre a damned fraud.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 04:41 pm
@Syamsu,
Your lose interpretation of free will doesn't make any sense.
Quote:
free will
noun
1.
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.


We are constrained by many things that includes our environment, genes, language, culture, government, our parents, siblings and peers.

Free will has nothing to do with 'how things work.'
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 04:54 pm
@farmerman,

Someone actually took the time to investigate ALL the signatories of the "Dissent from Darwinism". Ive just taken the people whose last names start with "A". Many are card carrying creationists and some felt they were misquoted. However, most do work in unrelated fields. You can see the whole list for yourself but "appeals from authority" don't do a damned thing. Id rather argue the actual evidence, not the person. Seems Quahog is so bent on AH's yet he is so quick to jump on "Appeals from Authority" "AA's"

Quote:

##S. Thomas Abraham, Assistant Professor of Pharmacology & Toxicology, Campbell University School of Pharmacy (a religious university). Now Associate professor. Has some publications in unrelated fields.
##Bernard d'Abrera, Visiting Scholar, "Department of Entomology, British Museum" (the listed affiliation is, quite simply, a lie; d'Abrera is associated with the Natural History Museum, which has not been part of the British Museum for several decades). d’Abrera is not a scientist by training and does not hold a Ph.D,[15] but is nevertheless a fellow of the pro-intelligent design organization International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. He has described the theory of evolution as “viscid, asphyxiating baggage” that requires “blind religious faith,” since, according to this particular PRATT, it is unfalsifiable. Arthur Shapiro aptly described d’Abrera as “profoundly anti-scientific – not unscientific, but hostile to science.”[16]
##Gary Achtemeier, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University. Currently works with the USDA Forest Service, doing (genuine) research on smoke management and air quality. Has dedicated himself to “removing stumbling blocks that keep God's people from coming before his throne,”[17] and written a book, “Cultural Espionage”, on the “evolution-creation controversy”.[18]
##Joel Adams, Professor of Computer Science, Calvin College. Has some publications, mostly on curriculum development.
##Marshall Adams, Ph.D. Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Currently Director of the Biological Indicators research program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Does have a decent publication record that may not be entirely unrelated – much of it assuming evolution, and none of it apparently offering anything but support.
##Neal Adrian, Ph.D. Microbiology, University of Oklahoma. Owner of Adrian Environmental LLC (improving indoor air quality) and certified mold remediator. Has apparently done some research, but in unrelated fields.
##Domingo Aerden, Professor of Geology, Universidad de Granada. Does research in unrelated fields.
##Rafi Ahmed, Ph.D. Computer Science, University of Florida. Consulting Member at Oracle. No peer-reviewed research publications found.
##Mauricio Alcocer, Director of Graduate Studies, Autonomous University of Guadalajara. Apparently sympathetic to the idea that the creation myths of Mexico are evidence for the Christian God and Trinity.[19] Has some podcasts attacking evolution.[20] Has a few older publications on plant physiology (in the journal Weed Technology), but nothing from the last 15 years found.
##Moorad Alexanian, Professor of Physics, University of North Carolina, Wilmington. Has a decent publication record in an unrelated field, interleaved with plenty of publications in places such as “Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith”. Apparently thinks that evolution is unfalsifiable.
##Braxton Alfred, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology, University of British Columbia. Has claimed that he tried systematically to indoctrinate students with evolution for 33 years before he discovered and was converted to Intelligent Design.[21] Did some research, in anthropology, in the 1970s, but his work from the last 30 years seem primarily to be concerned with ID apologies published through non-scientific venues.
##Wesley Allen, Professor of Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia. The university website lists him as Associate Professor of Chemistry. Does real research, however, though in an unrelated field.
##Gail H. Allwine, Professor of Electrical Engineering (retired), Gonzaga University. No research publications found.
##Jesus Ambriz, Professor of Medicine, Autonomous University of Guadalajara. No research record found.
##Yoshiyuki Amemiya, Professor of Advanced Materials Science & Applied Physics, The University of Tokyo. Appears to be a real scientist, in an unrelated field.
##Changhyuk An, Ph.D. Physics, University of Tennessee. No research or current affiliation found.
##Richard Anderson, Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy, Duke University. Real researcher, unrelated field.
##Todd A. Anderson, Ph.D. Computer Science, U. of Kentucky. May have some (unrelated) research; no updated information found.
##Mark Apkarian, Ph.D. Exercise Physiology, University of New Mexico. No current affiliation, research, or information found.
##João Jorge Ribeiro Soares Gonçalves de Araújo, Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics, Open University (Portugal). Appears to have some publications in unrelated fields.
##Janice Arion, Ph.D. Animal Science, Cornell University. Currently at Coram Deo Academy (a private Christian school; appears to be an elementary school designed to supplement homeschooling). No research found since her student days.
##William J. Arion, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry, Cornell University. Has publications in apparently unrelated fields. Also a global warming denialist and signatory to the Oregon Petition.
##Neil Armitage, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Cape Town. Has a decent research record in an unrelated field.
##D. Albrey Arrington, Ph.D. Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University. Currently at Perry Institute for Marine Science. Appears to be involved in real research, though in unrelated fields.
##Eduardo Arroyo, Professor of Forensics, Complutense U. Appears to do some research, unrelated to the question at hand.
##Eugene C. Ashby, Regents’ Professor and Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Georgia Institute of Technology. Hardcore creationist who cherish all the standard misunderstandings and untruths that reveal the thorough lack of understanding of evolution you’d expect[22] who supported the infamous disclaimer stickers in Cobb County, GA, put on biology textbooks proclaiming that evolution is “a theory, not a fact”. Used to be a respectable scientist, but does not appear to have been involved in scientific research for the last 25 years.
##Paul Ashby, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard U. Currently at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Does research in an unrelated field.
##Michael Atchison, Professor of Biochemistry, University of Pennsylvania, Vet. School. Appears to do real research; also associated with the Christian Leadership Ministries. Was the guy who was responsible for “peer reviewing” Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”; at least Behe has claimed that Atchison’s 10 minute phone communication about book with Behe counted as peer review.[23]
##Joseph Atkinson, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, Massachusets Institute of Technology. Google returns no affiliation, research, or information
##Gregory A. Ator, Associate Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, U. of Kansas Medical Center. Does research in unrelated fields.
##Richard Austin, Assoc. Prof. & Chair, Biology & Natural Sciences, Piedmont College. Also Republican member of the Georgia State House of Representatives (10th district) between 2009 and 2011. Currently Habersham County Commissioner. Has some not entirely irrelevant publications, but these appear to assume and/or support evolution rather than provide any challenges.
##Douglas Axe,[24] Director, Biologic Institute. Has published real, peer-reviewed papers in real journals, which are hailed by the Discovery Institute as evidence for their views, despite the fact that the papers, even according to Axe, provide no evidence for Intelligent Design.[25] Seems to think that if evolution were false, then Intelligent Design would be correct,[26] which is, of course, false insofar as Intelligent Design creationism is not a scientific theory and thus not even in the running. Struggles with basic notions of biology.[27]

[edit] B
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 04:56 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
Quote:

I won't be feeding the troll any longer. Go wallow in your diarrhea and have a good day, Bubba.



Ah, the easy way out! And a AH, of course.

Quehoniaomath -Setanta: 1 -0


If we had a proper referee Setanta would have been shown the red card for that sort of tripe. I think it's the only argument he knows because the habit set in when he was in his play pen and he carefully avoids anybody who might correct him. He's in the top three silliest and stupidest A2Kers.
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 04:57 pm
@spendius,
you are unqualified to make anything but over the fence rants. why not just get on with tonites imbibetry
0 Replies
 
Syamsu
 
  0  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 05:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The evolutionist Gould insisted that if evolution were "run again" that it could turn out differently. A turningpoint he called that.

Now if you regard the origins of species in terms of this concept of the turningpoint, which is what creationists call a decision, many turningpoints, sophisticated turningpoints, etc. then you have a rudimentary generic creationist theory. The way orgainsms turn out is a result of decisions. That is how freedom works, and there is much more to know about it. That is also the main reason why people reject evolution theory, because common sense says that freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

How science works is that if I put the cup on the leftside of the table, then the scientist records the fact that the cup is on the left. When I put it on the right, then the scientist records the fact that the cup is on the right. I choose, and with choosing new information is created, which the scientist can then model. You cannot get any more fundamental theory than choosing, because it describes origins, and origins is the most fundamental.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 05:04 pm
@Wilso,
Quote:
Jesus christ. We've become a safe haven for asylum escapees.


The girly blurting no longer works on here.

I disagree with Q on both religion and evolution but I agree with him that you are saying nothing and thus trolling. As is the case with others who have have failed to grow up properly.

Your insults are meaningless and if you don't know it something has gone wrong in your socialisation.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 05:06 pm
@Syamsu,
there is no "creationist theory" ITS ALL DOGMA that you accept or lose your indulgences.

The USSC agrees with me and CI. You lose
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 05:10 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
You use crackpot religionist sites for your material.


Are Islamic sites included in that stupid remark. The use of "crackpot" strokes Setanta's own dick.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 05:13 pm
@Brandon9000,
We might be better off ignoring you Brandon because you are saying nothing by agreeing with Setanta's nothing.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 05:19 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Scientists are usually an honest bunch


Hey fm-- you're not being allowed to empty your lungs at a class of infants you know. What do scientists need organised PR for if they are honest? They are a bunch of shysters imo.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 05:22 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Id rather argue the actual evidence, not the person.


Why do you argue from gunga in that case? And from ci, and SCOTUS. A fine juzzaposition indeed. You're like an octopus with a red hot poker up its arse.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 07:00 pm
@Syamsu,
Quote:
The evolutionist Gould insisted that if evolution were "run again" that it could turn out differently. A turningpoint he called that.

That's the way evolution can work. Environmental Circumstances to which organisms adapt can dictate many different outcomes
depending upon small variables in these environmental changes.

We see evolution in retrospect , we haven't ever seen it prospectively.
(At least I cant think of any)
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 07:07 pm
@Syamsu,
Quote:
you have a rudimentary generic creationist theory. The way orgainsms turn out is a result of decisions.
Do you mean that Creationists stipulte to a succession of organisms that replace those that go extinct and these "replacement " organisms are specially created at each unit of successive time?

If you do, you've got a close tie with evolution and extinction/
BTW, what do you think about the concept of extinction? is it real? Does the fossil record accurately show us when organisms lived through time and in varying environment.?

How come e don't see animals like elephants in the earliest fossil layers and how come we don't see any ancient fossils in modern sediments (things like trilobites or placoderm fishes)?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 1 Jul, 2014 07:37 pm
@farmerman,
What is so common and yet not understood well is that flu vaccines must evolve as the flu viruses evolve. That's proof of evolution and how humans are able to deter the changes in viruses.

Thank god for flu vaccines!
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 01:12 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Thank god for flu vaccines!


Really???

Quote:
10 Reasons Why Flu Shots Are More Dangerous Than a Flu!

1.) There is a total lack of real evidence that young children even benefit from flu shots. A systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo. Also the shots are only able to protect against certain strains of the virus, which means that if you come into contact with a different strain of virus you will still get the flu.

2.) Medical journals have published thousands of articles revealing that injecting vaccines can actually lead to serious health problems including harmful immunological responses and a host of other infections. This further increases the body’s susceptibility to the diseases that the vaccine was supposed to protect against.

3.) Ever noticed how vaccinated children within days or few weeks develop runny noses, pneumonia, ear infections and bronchiolitis? The reason is the flu virus introduced in their bodies which creates these symptoms. It also indicates immuno-suppression i.e. lowering of the immunity. The flu vaccines actually do not immunize but sensitize the body against the virus.

4.) Its a known fact that Flu vaccines contain strains of the flu virus along with other ingredients. Now think about the impact such a vaccine can have over someone with a suppressed immune system? If you have a disease that is already lowering your body’s ability to fight a virus, taking the flu shot will put your body in danger of getting the full effects of the flu and make you more susceptible to pneumonia and other contagious diseases.

5.) The Flu vaccines contain mercury, a heavy metal known to be hazardous for human health. The amount of mercury contained in a multi-dose flu shot is much higher than the maximum allowable daily exposure limit. Mercury toxicity can cause memory loss, depression, ADD, oral health problems, digestive imbalances, respiratory problems, cardiovascular diseases and many more such serious health ailments.

And what about the elderly? Can the flu vaccine help them?

6.) There is mounting evidence that flu shots can cause Alzheimer’s disease. One report shows that people who received the flu vaccine each year for 3 to 5 years had a 10-fold greater chance of developing Alzheimer’s disease than people who did not have any flu shots. Also with age the immune system weakens, thus lowering your ability to fight off infections. Introducing the flu virus in the bodies of elderly could have dangerous consequences.

Can we trust the authorities who are promoting the wide-spread use of flu vaccines?

7.) The Center for Disease Control appoints a 15-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This committee is responsible for deciding who should be vaccinated each year. Almost all the ACIP have a financial interest in immunizations. It’s all about the money and may have very little to do with your health and well being. The very people pushing these vaccines stand to make billions of dollars. This itself creates a doubt on how effective these flu vaccines really are?

8.) Research shows that over-use of the flu-vaccine and drugs like Tamiflu and Relenza can actually alter flu viruses and cause them to mutate into a more deadly strain. Couple this with drug resistant strains and you have virtually no benefits with much risk.

9.) There is enough evidence that shows that the ingredients present in the flu vaccinations can actually cause serious neurological disorders. In the 1976 swine flu outbreak, many who got the flu shots developed permanent nerve damage. Flu vaccines can contain many harmful materials including detergent, mercury, formaldehyde, and strains of live flu virus. Is this what you want to put in YOUR body?

10.) Trying to guess what strain to vaccinate against each season has proved to be no more effective than a guessing game. This has been very true in recent years with the H1N1 strain. Moreover getting multi-shots will only prove more dangerous as different strains of viruses and harmful ingredients are introduced into your body.

Flu shots are indeed more dangerous than you could think, and it is best to rely on natural ways to protect against the flu rather than getting yourself vaccinated.

Isn’t it interesting that the main stream public health officials never promote the various proven ways to avoid the flu other than through vaccination? How about spending some of the billions of advertising dollars teaching us natural ways to boost our immune systems and avoid the flu without harmful and sometimes deadly vaccinations.



http://www.bewellbuzz.com/general/10-reasons-flu-shots-dangerous-flu/
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Wed 2 Jul, 2014 01:14 am
Quote:
I disagree with Q on both religion and evolution but I agree with him that you are saying nothing and thus trolling. As is the case with others who have have failed to grow up properly.


that is the proper way to discuss!! Everyone here is entitled to my opinion. Wink
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 10/08/2024 at 06:38:24