Why do people deny evolution?

That's not circular reasoning. In logic A is still A unless you're able to prove otherwise. You can't. You're only playing word games - and poorly at that!

Logic 101: A = A = A = A......

"It" loves to adopt terms to troll you. He's got something against Science...somehow he's been made to feel he's not smart enough...he's willing to employ creative absurdity to fight his battle..

my comments about this guy are on gungasnakes thread. Berlinski don't know squat about biology or paleontology. He confuses "origins of life" with evolution.

BUT, if you think he makes sense and your rice krispies has channeled him to you, go for it.

But youre still an ignorant douche bag

He confuses "origins of life" with evolution.

Ol loooovee to read extremely stupid things like these:

Quote:
This is nothing more than a collection of unreferenced false assertions. The reality is that dating methods are very accurate and reliable. There are error bars, like everything in science, but multiple methods can be used on multiple samples and an average can be taken to make a very accurate estimate of the ages of various rocks, strata, and fossils

what a circular reasoning this one is!

It is very easy to read how he tries to convince himself of this nonsense.

Scientists believe that they may have caught their first glimpse of the Higgs Boson, or “God particle”, a subatomic unit that is a vital factor in science’s understanding of the universe.


Physicists Fabiola Gianotti and Guido Tonelli of the Large Hadron Collider’s two largest experiments, Atlas and CMS, announced the discovery of signals that point to the appearance of the Higgs boson at a seminar on Tuesday at the Organisation of Nuclear Research (CERN) near Geneva, however there is not enough data to claim a formal discovery.

Joan Roughgarden thinks Charles Darwin made a terrible mistake. Not about natural selection—she’s no bible-toting creationist—but about his other great theory of evolution: sexual selection. According to Roughgarden, sexual selection can’t explain the homosexuality that’s been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life. By neglecting all those gay animals, she says, Darwin misunderstood the basic nature of heterosexuality.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/

It is also interesting to see that matches in DNA doesn't say a damn thing about evolution! Nothing Nada Zilch.

Roughgarden first began thinking Darwin may have been in error after she attended the 1997 gay pride parade in San Francisco, where she had gone to walk alongside a float in support of transgendered people. Although she had lived her first 52 years as a man, Roughgarden was about to become a woman. The decision hadn’t been easy. For one thing, she was worried about losing her job as a tenured professor of biology at Stanford. (The fear turned out to be unfounded.)

After living for a year in Santa Barbara while undergoing the “physical aspects of the transition,” Roughgarden returned to Stanford in the spring of 1999 and decided to write a book about the biology of sexual diversity. In particular, she wanted to answer the question that had first surfaced in her mind back in 1997. “When I was at that gay pride parade,” Roughgarden remembers, “I was just stunned by the sheer magnitude of the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] population. Because I’m a biologist, I started asking myself some difficult questions. My discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of anomaly. But if the purpose of sexual contact is just reproduction, as Darwin believed, then why do all these gay people exist? A lot of biologists assume that they are somehow defective, that some developmental error or environmental influence has misdirected their sexual orientation. [b]If so, gay and lesbian people are a mistake that should have been corrected a long time ago. But this hasn’t happened.[/b] That’s when I had my epiphany. When scientific theory says something’s wrong with so many people, perhaps the theory is wrong, not the people

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/

Your statement is meaningless. If you were to actually argue that way then you could argue that all hydrogen in the universe should all be in stars, after all it is hydrogen that condenses to form them, so how can there possibly be hydrogen that is not in stars? Evolution and DNA are not parallel in scope. It is the survival of the species that transports the "prosperous" DNA. If the species fails to survive then that DNA fails to be passed to future offspring. Now mutations in the DNA can either hinder or benefit a species but it still depends on survival to determine if the DNA will remain within the gene pool of future species.

AND then there is this:

Joan Roughgarden, a professor of biology at Stanford University:

Quote:

Joan Roughgarden thinks Charles Darwin made a terrible mistake. Not about natural selection—she’s no bible-toting creationist—but about his other great theory of evolution: sexual selection. According to Roughgarden, sexual selection can’t explain the homosexuality that’s been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life. By neglecting all those gay animals, she says, Darwin misunderstood the basic nature of heterosexuality.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_gay_animal_kingdom/

This presupposes that all species SHOULD enact their sexuality in ONLY heterosexual behavior. If you assume that then of course you would make the mistake of understanding how homosexuality is a possible outcome. Sexuality isn't JUST a genetic trait, there are other factors that determine it. Just like humans can be bi-sexual where they are attracted to both sexes. But of course the ignorant will chose to ignore this fact as well..

Quote:

This presupposes that all species SHOULD enact their sexuality in ONLY heterosexual behavior. If you assume that then of course you would make the mistake of understanding how homosexuality is a possible outcome. Sexuality isn't JUST a genetic trait, there are other factors that determine it. Just like humans can be bi-sexual where they are attracted to both sexes. But of course the ignorant will chose to ignore this fact as well..

Yes, you are ignoring facts indeed! Please read the book.



One more qustion, do you actually, really, deeply believe in the religion called evolution?

I just refuted the book with two paragraphs