Why do people deny evolution?

He doesn't get it.

First of all he assumes that there is no evolutionary advantage in turning the hunger for knowledge on and off and secondly he assumes that science has no knowledge in its lockers that he would prefer to be turned off or is not even aware of because it has been turned off for him.

Are you saying you found something which is irreducibly complex? Michael Behe will be glad to hear it because neither he (or anyone else) has ever been able to identify such a thing.

Bill Maher
Merry Xmas! This is the year atheists started meeting communally just like churchgoers! Let's nip that **** right in the bud.

Profound, complex: all within the realm of possibility.
The migrating nostril is complex to the point of "But it's evolution; so it must be true!"

Won't folks get the wrong idea if you choose to celebrate on the Feast of the Saturnalia?

If "growing" entails becoming willfully ignorant, count me out.

Look up the top causes of death before science became prominent.

Now look them up now.

Science has done a lot more good than bad. You can dance around the topic all you want, but the facts don't lie.

danger of extinction.

Again, I've sent you to various sources of evidence about whale evolution and you've ignored them all.

You are willfully ignorant.

No, you have sent links to exegeses you yourself appear to have not carefully read. Explain please, in your own words, the exact appearance of the 3 traits in question: migrating nostril, separation of airway from throat, and breach birth. Show that you understand how they could not have appeared separately. Then we can talk.

Of course, evolution and Embryological development (EVO/DEVO) are CONCLUSIONS based upon evidence and findings in the lab and the field
Evidence shows us that we have:
1. several fossils of quite similar species having slightly different frontal skull carapaces ear bones and migrating "blowholes.

2These fossils occur in the same part of the planet from 55 to about 35 MY ago and each slightly different specie occupies slightly later sediments (sed layers differ from less than 1 to over 5 my apart. ND the modifications to the deepening carapace, the internal ear structure, nostril configuration and elongating and split buccal skeletal parts change throughout this period.

3Modern whales show an embryonic development that "Recapitulates" the above structures through that period of time, as if modern embryos had a "genetic memory" of what they once were.

4 AND, there are no indications of overlap of changing fossil structures beyond a single step of modification (eg step A and B overlap in parts of the fossil record, but steps A and C do not). What would be a Creationists view and explanations on such finds in the field?

are you certain that breech is the preferred presentation of a whale calf birth? or is it a certain % of ALL whale births?

It's not a hard concept to understand...

And yes, it definitely DOES explain how it happened on the wiki link I posted, and FM just explained it to you as well.

Look at the layers of fossils (all dated to be about the same period of time in the geologic time scale). Each fossil is slightly different than the other. This is not hard to understand. In fact, I took the class that explains this concept as a Freshman in college. Anyone with above average intelligence can easily get the concept. You strike me as someone with average/above average intellect. That leads me to believe you simply don't want to accept it and/or you think you literally know better than almost all of the scientific community. In fact, that's a question I'd like to explore! Don't avoid this question or I'll just re-post it.
Do you know more about Biology than almost all of the Biologists in the world?

There's plenty more where they came from.

We were talking about extinction at our own hands. Before science there was no danger of that. Now it's a possibility. Or some say it is.

I'm a fan of science but I recognise it should have oversight applied to it. That's why we have Ethics Committees. And there is only religion to provide oversight.

Would you scrap ethics? Science knows nothing of ethics. Darwin strenuously opposed limitations of animal experiments. And lost.

His theory proved we are kith and kin with animals and would have raised no hackles in religions which accepted that.

Most atheists and Humanists accept the Christian separation of man and animals thus standing Darwin on his head. Humanism derives from Christianity when it accepts that humans are special. It is a key dogma shared by both.

By God's will in the one case and by the human capacity to control human destiny and progress. And evolution doesn't do progress.

The laugh is that true evolutionists are ultra conservative and liberals are jumping all over evolution in order to prove they might sidestep Christian sexual morality. Their so-called science is nothing but talking through their dicks. It has to be because the rest of Christian moral teaching is law.

I bet you are against price gouging. Talking through your pocket.

There are plenty of scientists who acknowledge the flaws in evolution, they just don't get published, remember!

Here we go again. The necessity to prove personal superiority rears up before us. On the evidence of your posts, James, you are quite average I can assure you.

Classes explain very little.

Do you not deny evolution simply for preening purposes? That's fair enough because preening is a well established behaviour pattern in evolution.

First of all, if they're not getting published then how do you know about them?

And secondly, if anyone actually did find a real "flaw" in evolution (and not just an error in their data or interpretation) they not only wouldn't have any trouble getting published, science journals would be knocking down their door begging to publish them.

http://m.therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/prof_results.php?city=New+York&spec=166

acknowledging flaws or gaps in the data is a constant task in science in any pursuit. A "Flaw" gives many scientists opportunities to "get to the bottom of the error and determine how far reaching it is"

Ctreationists use such data to default to some "Irreducible complexity" without even developing their own basis of logic . They INSIST that others must follow certain paths without requiring it of themselves.

A recent "Flaw" in data is this entire flap of "soft tissue" in dinosaurs. The Smithsonian Institution is building an exhibit to present a lot of the data and conclusions reached. The workers in field have preliminarily announced in several journals that they have found a new category of a kind of "saponification' in natures bag of tricks that produce fossils. Saponification is the reaction of a fatty acid ad a base in contact with each other, forming a "fossil organic chemical"
There are already Paleozoic "Waxes" from the coal measures of the pre Permian rocks. Many geochemists are actually looking at these "Soft tissues" and are operating under various indications that these soft tissues are either recent organic contaminants or are actual facts of fossilization.

The rock and the bone are undoubtedly of Cretaceous age, the boundary ash layers of the HEll Creek are clearly 65 +/- years old and the fossils are of the correct species that compare contemporaneously with all other fossils of the same species in the US where true radiometric ages , magnetic ages, and structural ages have been established for the fossil bed itself.

Yep, this whole thing has created an area of interest that gets published quite regularly (and critiqued vigorously by colleagues).
The one thing that science does publicly is its wash. ANY thing that needs correction gets corrected by a passel of workers with time and funding.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I would point out that when Creationists talk about "flaws" they are not talking about little discrepancies in the details of the process, they are implying "FLAWS" with the fundamental basis of evolution as a whole.

For example, Irreducible Complexity IF it existed (which it doesn't) would constitute a fundamental flaw in the process of evolution as we understand it. When Neo challenges the evolution of a cetacean blowhole, he's implying that the blowhole is an irreducibly complex structure which could not have arisen by evolutionary processes. And as you well know, many such claims have been made about irreducibly complex structures, none of which have panned out.

The burden of proof lies upon anyone who claims that a structure is irreducibly complex, to prove it so. And just because Neo throws in a little accusation about scientists saying "But it's evolution; so it must be true!" (even though they never really say that), doesn't shift the burden of proof onto scientists.