Why do people deny evolution?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Actually, it's 4.5 by, and fm is correct 99% of the time.

Do you make a distinction at all between the age of the solar system and the age of the universe? Actually this is a good question: why is the age of the universe different from the age of the solar system - what has been right here, in the place of the solar system before that (more than 4.5 Bya ago).

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

How about we start from the real beginning. Where's the evidence for your god?

Why don't you simply answer to the questions. If you answer to a question with a question I guess I can afford this as well. Where is the evidence for the assumptions of your big bang theory? Just don't say that the string theory can explain the big bang theory, for in that case the question will be: who invented the physical laws of the string theory ... not who discovered them through observations or by reading scientific and not entirely scientific articles ... who/what designed them, when, how and why?

1 Reply

@Herald,

OK, let's stick with questions, then. What's more plausible, that some illiterate Bronze Age nomads' campfire stories about an invisible, undetectable, omniscient sky-being that nobody can detect are true, or that after a few centuries of rigorous testing, physicists and other scientists have a pretty good grip on things?

2 Replies

@FBM,

it is not about being plausible of course. History has thought us that.
It is ONLY about being true or not true.

and so far, because of lack of evidence, evolution is not true.
That is for everyone with eyes to see extremely clear.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

OK, let's stick with questions, then. What's more plausible, that some illiterate Bronze Age nomads' campfire stories about an invisible, undetectable, omniscient sky-being that nobody can detect are true

You didn't answer the question: who has invented the laws of physics and why they are changing with every new generation of physicists.

FBM wrote:

or that after a few centuries of rigorous testing, physicists and other scientists

... can't still tell how many dimensions has the hyperspace, whether the red shift in the light is not some kind of an optical illusion ... or due to the blue shift in the particles with the time; can't still tell if the universe is expending ... everywhere, why your computer is not expanding, for example, etc.

FBM wrote:

have a pretty good grip on things?

Is this the joke of the millennium?

2 Replies

@Herald,

It's not my job to give you an education in science. You easlily demand that others provide every scrap of the reams and tons of scientific evidence painstakingly collected over the centuries, yet refuse any suggestion that you might provide a mere sliver of genuine evidence for your invisible sky-being.

I don't recall engaging you in the first place. I've mentioned elsewhere that I don't really care what theists believe as long as they are not bothering me or endangering the public at large with it. Now, piss off away from me with your fallacious word salads and frantic hand-waving unless you've got at least that sliver of evidence to support your supernatural claims.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

Because every expert would say , that it is impossible to believe that a single-celled organism ( bacterium) became a multiple cellular human organism.

How many evolution discussions will pop up, yet?
Monkeys are additionally unable to donor blood or organs .

Pigs have some simular organs which matches to humans for a while .

And mostly do evolution believers think Aliens do make crop circles . There are instructions for build this by internet.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

You didn't answer the question: who has invented the laws of physics and why they are changing with every new generation of physicists.

Because we find out new things and incorporate them into our knowledge. You are demanding that things not change so why do adults normally act different compared to newborns?

1 Reply

@Tekla,

Quote:

And mostly do evution believers think Aliens do make crop circles .

I have to say, that's a funny one.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

It's not my job to give you an education in science.

... and how did you come to know that you are 'giving' me education. Giving presupposes that you should have possessed the education, in the first place.

FBM wrote:

and tons of scientific evidence

If you are curious to know there are various types of evidence besides Reflective Observation. There are also Analytics, Personal Experience, Confirmation through Experiments, Verification and Validation to name just a few. You deny any other type of evidence besides Reflective Observation and claim that you are ... how was that 'give you an education in science'. WFM.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Because we find out new things and incorporate them into our knowledge.

This is the second part, where is the first part - who has invented the rules under which the big bang has been operating - and if it is still in operation along the edges of the universe, how did it happen so that the whole universe is at one and the same age ... and why are we into the center of the universe (equal red shift in any direction) - this is very suspicious.

parados wrote:

You are demanding that things not change so why do adults normally act different compared to newborns?

I am not demanding anything of the kind - the question was if the physicists 'have a pretty good grip on things' why do they change continuously their representation of the world without even trying to prove whether the world itself has changed or not? The change in the representation has in no way impact on the physical world itself.
Further, if the laws of physics have always been 'relative' (and subject to amendments), what is the guarantee that the current laws are not that 'relative' as well?

2 Replies

@Herald,

The problem is when you don't know something, rather than trying to find out new things and incorporate it into your knowledge you just throw up your hands. We don't know everything. If we did, we wouldn't learn new things would we?

Quote:

I am not demanding anything of the kind - the question was if the physicists 'have a pretty good grip on things' why do they change continuously their representation of the world without even trying to prove whether the world itself has changed or not?

It seems you can't learn new things. You can only repeat the same thing over and over. If you think you have $20 in your pocket and then you reach in your pocket and find you have a $10 and two $5 do you have to prove the world has changed? Just because we learn new things about what is happening around us doesn't mean the world has changed and we don't have to prove it has changed when we can see and measure it differently. It only means we are seeing it differently or more accurately. When people stopped believing the world was flat did anyone have to prove the earth changed for that to be true?

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Further, if the laws of physics have always been 'relative' (and subject to amendments), what is the guarantee that the current laws are not that 'relative' as well?

That is precisely what science is all about. It is always subject to amendments when new information allows us to make better theories based on observations. Your desire for things to not change will never happen in science. Science will always change because there is always new information that can be added to what we know.

0 Replies

@Herald,

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/airwank%201.gif

Found any evidence for that god of yours yet?

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Found any evidence for that god of yours yet?

Obviously the cynicism is the supreme and final stage of the 'scientific' education.

1 Reply

@FBM,

If the likes of Herald provided one evidence for their creator, all this b.s. would end. They demand we provide evidence for science/evolution that's a simple search on the internet - which they seem incapable of doing, but has failed to provide ONE evidence for their creator/god.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:

Found any evidence for that god of yours yet?

Obviously the cynicism is the supreme and final stage of the 'scientific' education.

I take that as a 'no.'

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If the likes of Herald provided one evidence for their creator, all this b.s. would end. They demand we provide evidence for science/evolution that's a simple search on the internet - which they seem incapable of doing, but has failed to provide ONE evidence for their creator/god.

Exactly. In order to meet their demands, every one of us would need to have a Nobel Prize in Physics. A decent education in science precludes the need for that. And since scientific conclusions are inferential, they're fundamentally tentative, unlike the absolutist claims of the theist ilk. Yet, you try to get a single scrap of anything like legitimate evidence and the hand-waving, name-calling and word salads start flying.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Found any evidence for that god of yours yet?

     What would you say about our own intelligence (I hope you are not going to deny it). How did it happen that we are 'the first and still the best' in our universe ... without even knowing what our universe actually is ... and whether it really is ours (we are alone in that replica of the time-space continuum and the other ILFs are 'on another radio station').
     You don't know what our own intelligence is ... but you know (from the physics or from wherever) that the absolute intelligence cannot exist in the universe, that the universe is arranged somehow on casino auto-pilot - just to ask: can you play chess on 'casino auto-pilot' (without humans and/or programs managing it) - and do you have any vague idea how much more complex we and our universe are in comparison to the rules of the chess game?
     Evidence No.1: Our own intelligence is so complex that there is no way for it to have appeared from green algae and cyanobacteria ... on casino auto-pilot. I cannot say whether it is absolutely impossible, but for sure it is extremely improbable - much beyond the absolute margin of plausible impossibility (the probability for a human to pass through a wall of reinforced concrete).

2 Replies

@Herald,

Present your evidence that we are the first and still the best in our universe. That is an asinine statement since you can't provide any evidence to back it up. Your evidence will be less than has been presented for evolution. And you think you have intelligence?

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know