Why do people deny evolution?

If you want to talk about wanking off you should start a "neurology" or "human behavior" thread.

Actually, I have been published once, which is once more than any creationist

I wasn't the author of the paper, but I got a mention because I was doing the research with the professor.

Dawkins has been married 3 times, it must have gone something like this with wives 1 and 2-

WIFEY (during lovemaking)- "Dicky darling, talk sexy to me"..
DAWKINS- "Alright honeybun, motile sperm cells typically move via flagella and require a water medium in order to swim toward the egg for fertilization. In animals most of the energy for sperm motility is derived from the metabolism of fructose carried in the seminal fluid. This takes place in the mitochondria located in the sperm's midpiece (at the base of the sperm head). These cells cannot swim backwards due to the nature of their propulsion. The uniflagellated sperm cells (with one flagellum) of animals are referred to as spermatozoa, and are known to vary in size...."
WIFEY- "OH SHUT THE **** UP!!!"

Too funny!

Hmmmnn...

Not one Creationist has published a book (and authored it as opposed to getting just a mention)?

Sorry, I was assuming we all knew these were SCIENTIFIC papers. My mistake for not specifying for you.

The examples of your arrogance abound.

I apologized that you didn't understand.

As highlighted in numerous threads in which you lose arguments to me, I do not care about whether you think I am arrogant or not. It means literally nothing to me.

So then you shouldn't need to keep repeating it.

You seem as if you are a beautiful young man JimmyJ. Left in thought as to why you're not married yet.

Okay, Finn. I am going to walk you through this again like I have on every post so far and you'll likely stop posting like you have on every post once I've made it crystal clear to you.

You posted here. Once again it was apparent that you hadn't read the context of the conversation and were just posting on impulse (this seems to be a recurring thing with you). You tried to condescendingly say, "no creationist has published before?"

I then clarified to you that we were talking about scientific publications. After being shown that you were wrong (per-usual) in your initial post you started with the name-calling.





Now that you understand more clearly how you've lost yet again here in the few posts you've made, perhaps you could be more careful in the future?

You have no clue how young I am if you're bringing up marriage, lol.

Romeo Fabulini needs love JimmyJ.

Remeo seems sad. Upset. Hurt. Longing for something yet having a difficult time finding it. Love would do wonders with him.

Pertinent question, as only a small percentage of whale births have been observed. I checked a few sites and this one came up near first on Google, under "cetacean birth" http://www.savethewhales.org/about_whales.html.
There it says. "It is believed that most cetacean calves are born tail first, so that the blowholes are last to emerge, in order that even in a complicated birth the calf is not likely to drown."

These folks seem highly committed to cetaceanistic endeavors, so I used some of their observations to torch Jimmy. Hope that's OK.

Of course not! Name any field and I languish at the bottom rung. But one thing I do understand is the rigor of scientific method and the demands of epistemological certainty. Here are a few lines from the site I referenced to farmer (supra).

"About fifty million years ago, the first whale-type mammal entered the seas. Archaeocetes were small in comparison to modern whales. The archaeocetes evolved from terrestrial animals believed to have been a dog-sized mammal with a tail. The question of whether archaeocetes gave rise to the two existing suborders, Mysticete and Odontoceti, is still a matter of controversy. Some scientists believe the two suborders may have risen from two different sources rather than one common ancestor. (paragraph)

What we do know is warm-blooded whales, dolphins and porpoises evolved superbly to inhabit the aquatic world.. . . " (Note highlighted text in bold underline.)

To be fair, this is not a scientific treatise. But if you take the time to Google terms like 'archaeocetes', you will find similar non commitment not found in disciplines such as physics and chemistry. Of course, evolutionary study lacks the rigor of laboratory analysis; but that is precisely why evolution should continue to be referred to as hypothesis and why is is the height of arrogance to proclaim it a law.

I suspect the underlying motive for such elevation is refusal to discover a creator to whom we might have obligation.

I greatly appreciate the erudition of farmerman and others who have broadened my general knowledge and directed my attention to important things. I overlook their occasional crustiness, a favor they generally return to my own zeal. We banter our wisdom amidst sips of cyber coffee and deep respect. This is a club open to all. Way past time for you to join.

And you wonder why so many people in this forum think you are a wet behind the ears youth?

I think you have to be 16 to get married in most states, generally 18 no questions, 16 with parental consent of both parties.

If JimmyJ is seriously that young then I'm impressed with his maturity.

All of my comments toward JimmyJ are meant to be taken as G rated content. No offense in any way.

I asked you a question and you gave me two different answers to it. I asked you if you think you are more knowledgeable than the Biologists in the world. You first said no, but then you hinted that evolution is false, which is the same as you saying you know more about Biology than them.

Discovering a creator has nothing to do with science. Science assumes a creator does not exist (because no evidence for one has ever been presented). Let me know when you publish the study proving a creators existence. You will be declared the greatest scientist of all time if you are able to successfully do so.

As far as your quote, you misread/misunderstood what the article was saying. There is not debate as to whether the evolution happened. The debate is whether or not the process by which they came to be was convergent evolution or divergent evolution (look these terms up). I can tell you haven't read many Biology papers/publishings or you'd be more attuned to the language.

Again, a simple google search could have clarified this for you.

I've stated my age numerous times.

However, I've clearly proven you wrong on every post you've ever bothered to comment on towards me. Give it a rest.