132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 01:19 am
NOW CAN WE HAVE SOME INTERMEDIATE FOSSILS SHOWN??
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 01:22 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

Here's a couple of videos for the not-so-bright folk hounding this thread. Smile http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/blogs/2-animated-videos-awesomely-explain-evolution


Good call. A couple of the yellers in this thread might be able to comprehend that, provided they'd bother. Wink You can lead a horse to water and all that...
Quehoniaomath
 
  -2  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 01:24 am
@FBM,
Quote:
Good call. A couple of the yellers in this thread might be able to comprehend that, provided they'd bother


I bothered, and it is indeed very funny. Nothing more!

It is also very very funny to see people trying to defend their religion.
Even against all odds. it is also embarrassing to see.

btw why exactly do you accept the evolution hoax? Besides your indoctrination.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 08:20 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
quohog, Have you ever taken any course in logic? LOL Mr. Green Mr. Green Laughing Laughing Laughing Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 09:22 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
btw why exactly do you accept the evolution hoax?


Because change is the only constant.

Why do you disbelieve it?
FBM
 
  1  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 09:46 pm
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

Quote:
btw why exactly do you accept the evolution hoax?


Because change is the only constant.


What about the tons and tons of fossil records and the libraries full of peer-reviewed empirical data? What about the absolute lack of such data to support the supernatural explanation?
Builder
 
  1  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 09:50 pm
@FBM,
Yeah, we've hit/her him with all that, and more.

Back to basics, for me. Nothing stays the same forever, so even the source for the available oxygen on this planet has evolved over millenia.

What's the time scale for religious believers? Less than ten thousand years?
FBM
 
  1  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 09:57 pm
@Builder,
I agree about change, but I doubt it's going to be any more convincing than all the factual data we've presented. Face it, when someone's that deluded, there's no amount of evidence that can change their fragmented thinking.

Yeah, less than 10k, at least for young-earthers.
Builder
 
  2  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 10:06 pm
@FBM,
It's easier for some to believe in magic, it seems.

FBM
 
  1  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 10:06 pm
@Builder,
Definitely easier than science class and calculus. Wink
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 10:11 pm
@Builder,
Hinduism is the oldest religion dated about 4k BC.
Builder
 
  1  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 10:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Our Aussie indigenes have been doing their thing for over 40,000 years. Apparently they were waiting for the Brit colonists to come and save their wretched asses. Or something like that. Smile
FBM
 
  2  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 10:26 pm
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/1958138_10152812598526605_3272189981731948557_n.png
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 10:33 pm
@Builder,
Thanks. I'm sure there have been religions long before recorded human history.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 10:33 pm
While I'm totally in agreeance on the whole evolutionary and scientific explanation gig, I do know that over the last few decades, the creeping insidious corporate coup d'etat that has eclipsed our democracy is affecting our science, or at least affecting what science is allowed to be published.

It's highly disturbing to a rational mind, watching this hijacking of established methodology, for the rather base and narrow-minded profit ideal.

FBM
 
  1  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 11:04 pm
"It's OK to be smart."

0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Sat 8 Nov, 2014 11:11 pm
It's curious that these memes show brunettes evolving into blondes.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Sun 9 Nov, 2014 12:48 am
@Builder,
More likely, it comes down to what science gets funded, and does the funding affect the outcomes in any minor way.
Builder
 
  1  
Sun 9 Nov, 2014 12:51 am
@roger,
Quote:
More likely, it comes down to what science gets funded, and does the funding affect the outcomes in any minor way.


I was referring to how biotech companies are buying up noted science journals, and directly affecting editorial content.

They are also moving their people into positions in the FDA, and the SCOTUS.

A corporate coup d'etat.

0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Sun 9 Nov, 2014 01:08 am
Hasn't macroeconomics always played a role in it?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 02:01:29