Why do people deny evolution?

@Olivier5,

Horse apples.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Same mental processes, and same IQ...

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

All 'they' know what to do is deny, deny, and more denials.

This is not exactly so. I am not denying for example our (of the humans) intelligence, and it is you who are denying the possibility for any intelligence to exist in the physical world. How can you explain then ours - where does it come from and does it go after that?

cicerone imposter wrote:

When we ask them one very simple question, they ignore it.     What are you complaing from? It is you that are commenting the things all the time without answering seriously to anything.

cicerone imposter wrote:
...and no answers coming on one basic question.
     ... and which is that 'basic question': Is the world knowable ... to us, or what? Can we continue bullshitting the population ... to infinity.

cicerone imposter wrote:
And they keep at it! TNCFS
     What is the interpretation in your understanding of the world of that 'The New Saints Football Club' - if this is it?

1 Reply

@Herald,

The only 'intelligence' we're talking about has to do with human intelligence.
It's about accepting what science has proven through evidence and facts about our environment.

You have provided nothing about your god or creator.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

We only have your word for it, just like in the other thread.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

That is exactly what I am trying to say - the more distant assumptions we make the faker and more groundless they obviously become.

Except it is your argument that is the faker and more groundless one when you posit a creator.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

I have another question: how did it happen so that we (the Earth) are into the 'center' of the Universe - absolutely equal red shift in all directions. How has that job happened?

ROFLMAO.
That has to be one of the stupidest statements from you yet.

If you have three objects moving at different speeds that all started from the same point they will all see the same redshift in the other objects even though none of them are at the center.

If we start with 3 objects close together and then accelerate them at different speeds :

A B C
....A.....B.....C

A will see B and C moving away. B will see A and C moving away. C will see A and B moving away. None of the objects are at the center but all will see red shift in every other object.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

In short, deniers rarely offer their own knowledge because they only care to undermine other people's knowledge.

It begs the question! WHO are the deniers?

The evolutionists of course!!!!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

You denying to be a denier?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

You denying to be a denier?

That wasn't my question , now was it?

But what I see is that evolutions-religious -adepts are in denial with regards to the fact that the Emperor has no Clothes. In other words, there is no evidence for evolution. If you really think you can show me, go ahead!

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Of course I can show you, but will you open your eyes and see?

Nobody can be forced to believe anything. You can bring a horse to water but not make it drink, etc. etc.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Why "besides observations"?

     Because when you claim that the Big Bang is a fact (and not a misinterpretation of light-travel-particles phenomena) you have to prove it, above all that:
     1. it exists
     2. the Big Bang has the ability to create 3D space out of any-D Hyperspace (if such Hyperspace exists)
     3. All the assumptions to the Big Bang theory are verified and validated and confirmed with accuracy to the 18th digit after the decimal point.
     4. Anything in the Big Bang theory, without any exception, should match everything in our understanding of the world ... without any exception. Nothing can exist that has all over it one and the same age, but its different parts have been born at various points of time - depending on how far from the center of the body they are.
     5. In your understanding of the things: how much and what types of proof would be enough to resolve the dispute with the falseness of the Big Bang 'theory'.

FBM wrote:

Have you ever observed your god?

How did you come to know that we should have the access to observe God ... and not to infer Him/It, for example? Where do you 'know' all that from?

FBM wrote:

A spirit or soul? Even your own?

What are you talking about the mind-body problem - when you have no plausible interpretation of it. You don't know what our mind is ... and how it works, and what is the difference between living biocode (living human) and a dead biocode (dead body). Haven't you paid attention that it is not the medical science that is driving our body, but rather the discoveries on our body that are driving the medical science. Our body is light years ahead of any science, of anything that science is, and ever will be.

FBM wrote:

Observation and necessary inference. Think it over.

What about confirmatory runs? Your favorite evolution theory claims that life on Earth has been created by a thunder strike 0f an accidental lightning over a broth of amino-acids. Why don't you confirm that by experiments ... on the Moon or on some asteroid, or on Mars - here on Earth you cannot confirm anything, for you cannot isolate the biosphere of the Earth from the experiment.
What about verification (the assurance that the Big Bang can be created out of the Hyperspace, or out of the zero-D space or out of whatever; that an explosion can create a brand new space ... with brand new dimensions), and validation (whether the mind-blowing claims of the Big Bang 'theory' are in compliance with any of the laws of physics, or math logic, etc.)?

1 Reply

Now, book anyone? Very good at convincing about the HUGE WHOLES and FLAWS in evolution:

Quote:

Compelling evidence that the most important assumptions on which Darwinism rests are wrong.
The controversial best-seller that sent Oxford University and Nature magazine into a frenzy has at last come to the United States. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism exposes the gaping holes in an ideology that has reigned unchallenged over the scientific world for a century. Darwinism is considered to be hard fact, the only acceptable explanation for the formation of life on Earth, but with keen insight and objectivity Richard Milton reveals that the theory totters atop a shambles of outdated and circumstantial evidence which in any less controversial field would have been questioned long ago. Sticking to the facts at hand and tackling a vast array of topics, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism offers compelling evidence that the theory of evolution has become an act of FAITH rather than a functioning science, and that not until the scientific method is applied to it and the right questions are asked will we ever get the true answers to the mystery of life on Earth

http://www.amazon.com/Shattering-Myths-Darwinism-Richard-Milton/dp/0892818840/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1415994097&sr=8-1&keywords=richard+milton+darwin

And there we have it!!!!! We found it folks! EVOLUTION IS BASED ON FAITH AND HENCE A RELIGION!!!

If you think he is wrong, the please tell me WHY he is wrong!!

But I think the case is closed.

Evolution is obsolete!

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Why do you believe this guy Milton? He could be wrong, or lying... Why do you choose to believe him?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Why do you believe this guy Milton? He could be wrong, or lying... Why do you choose to believe him?

CHOOSE to believe him?? lol
You are very very funny! You should read his book!
I did! It destroys evolution!
But I bet you don't dare!

And now, why do you choose to BELIEVE people who are pro-evolutionists????

Wink

Man o man where do these people come from?

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Here's an interesting article about neo-Darwinism; but the whole article misses the whole point about science. Mainly, that science has a way to correct past mistakes. It doesn't destroy the whole concept of evolution as this article would have us believe.
That's the 'problem' with Milton's thesis; he doesn't understand the concept of science. Science has a way to correct past mistakes; creationism has no evidence or rule. They're all human imagination. Imagination can't be checked and rechecked until they are found to be consistent with logic.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/rmilton_darwin1.htm

Quote:

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
"his interest in evolution"

Milton did not challenge this definition.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

CHOOSE to believe him?? lol
You are very very funny! You should read his book!
I did! It destroys evolution!
But I bet you don't dare!

Why did you choose to read this book? :-)

I tell you why: flattery. It tells what you want to hear, that's all. It could be written by a brain-dead chimp riled up with cocaine, you would still read it because it tells you that you are right...

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

To understand what Milton is advancing is that some of the details he describes is not evolution; it's creationism. He tackles some findings of evolution (some that have been proven to be wrong and corrected; some things that science does), then concludes evolution isn't a fact.

Milton doesn't understand the definition of science or evolution. He skirts it.
He throws out the baby with the bath water because he found some dirt. Small minds with small conclusions.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Honestly, I couldn't care less what this guy Milton's particular argument is. My point is that doubters are very selective about what they accept and reject, based on their own bias. This bias (be it religious or ideological) is usually very strong in doubters, and anything confirming the bias is ok, while anything going against it is bad. Thus the bias can only be reinforced.

This apply to all of us to a degree or another. The more ideological one is, the less one is willing to take on board dissenting opinions, alternative explanations and facts contradicting one's ideology.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Milton is a LAmarkian, so he doesn't avoid evolution, he merely redefines it to his own beliefs which include inheritance of "Acquired characteristics. Whether we like it or not, there possibly some evidence that some acquired characteritics may actually beheritable through epigenetic means. I don't think e know enough to formulate a arguable opinion on epigenetic c means of inheritance of acquired characteritics.
. Milton is not a researcher, hes a journalist so his "beliefs" which are exactly those of an educated layperson, do not carry any authority based on ed or experience

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know