Why do people deny evolution?

The code creates life forms from the atoms of the Earth.............When the code is understood, so will be life.

Look up the number "288 Untouchable Number".

144 translates to E=MC^2.

144 is half of 288.

They are geometric values being created subatomically.

36 is 1/10 of a circle.

21.65 (3.65; how many days in a year) is 1/3 of a triangle.

And here's a picture for the square root:

Look... More... 3's and 6's...

Yup, no doubt................

Sarcasm is mental death. Super villains as they are depicted are dead sarcastic; they are prone to make fun of the idea of emotions and feelings. Despite the irony that super villains want to conquer the whole world, but can't conquer themselves the slightest.

Are you dead inside?

Because... That's not going to change the fact I'm right and you're wrong.

You have yet to ask a single question. You respond to make noise, not sense.

We might wind up with a genuine education here...

Bullshit walks...

What difference does it make wether there is thousands of years scientific research and evidence or a hundred? If the recipients of such knowledge are ignorant themselves then the facts cannot be discovered.

It is not a case of denying evolution as it is verifying it. You can accept evolution as a concept only. But you must realise that this body/mind idea is also a concept you have conceived and it is from this standpoint that you conceive the idea of evolution. So in reality the concept of evolution as an absolute fact is flawed even before you get into the basics.

Before you can begin verifying any other concepts, you must pin down this primary concept, the knowledge that you are. How did this come about? Have you investigated this? As a matter of fact, if this primary concept is not in place, there could be no talk of any other concepts. Simply because the very instrument used for conceptualising would not be available. This primary concept, the knowledge that you are is instrumental to all other concepts

You must prove the subject; which is another dilemma that you will be faced up against when delivering the theory of evolution. Since the subject cannot be an object in the consciousness how are you going to validate the subjectivity your own existence ? Of course you know you exist but that is self evident therefore it need not be proven. But how can you prove that to somebody else. That which is analysing the concept and the objects of evolution must be present. Until you get the facts right here, how can you be sure of anything else?

Evolution only applies to the material, the consciousness. It does not address the fundamental principle at source, consciousness is only a reflection of that source itself. Within this consciousness there is a pattern of evolution contained in the memory and related by convention. This conventional pattern of evolution is only a mode of thought. Wash the memory and where is the pattern? If this consciousness is no more then where is the talk of evolution, what is there to evolve?

Good piece of work!!
Especially about the çoncept'.
And, you see, you can never turn a concept into a fact,
Never never never never, a concept is a concept is a concept is...

Facts aren't be all, end all either, not until it's physically demonstrated for all to see.

Nope, never! A concept can never turn in a fact!
I M P O S S I B L E.

science fiction "concepts" become facts quite regularly, prhaps someone should tell the authors that they are dealing with impossibilities (like evolution eh?)

And indeed it is just that, "science fiction". Science only pushes back the frontier of ignorance. It is not the mind that knows, somebody knows because of the mind.

We've got a planet and a comet populated only by robots. Voyager I has emerged from the heliopause and is now in interstellar space, still beeping back at us. We just wrapped up an unprecedentedly long and detailed survey of Venus, and all of us are communicating instantly via text despite being separated by an entire planet. We've got amputees controlling robotic limbs by thought power and can genetically modify organisms to give us designer products. The science fiction of the past is upon us, and technological achievements are multiplying at an increasing rate.

But there are still these creationists who watch the Flintstones as if it were a documentary and despite being (biologically, not necessarily emotionally or intellectually) adults, keep imaginary friends who talk to them and give them signs, including orders to kill infidels (or just whoever happens to be around). What an interesting time to be alive, eh? I'm recalling that the Chinese saying, "May you live in interesting times" was not a blessing.

Culture shock is a big part of this. Anyone who is 70 years old right now was born into a world without cell phones, without the internet, before any man-made object had orbited the planet, before people or machines had visited the moon or other planets. This was before the rise of genetics as a sound investigative tool, before the confirmation of evolutionary theory with genetics, before most of the isotope decay measurements for dating the strata of rocks. In short, anyone who is now 70 was born into a completely different world, in which there was little difference between their world and the world of century before. No polio vaccine, no reliable antibiotics (a mixed blessing), to chemical therapy for cancer, no radiation therapy--none of those were availbable. There had not even ever been a nuclear device tested or used in war.

So those people have taught their stubborn incredulity to their children, who has passed it along to their children. Additionally, there are legions of those who exploit that incredulity. Those invested in that antiquated world view ar constantly comforted by the hucksters and the BS artists who make a good living out of their incredulity.

It's going to be a long time before the anti-science lunacy settles into the status of a lunatic fringe. Right now, it's mainstream.

What do you mean by "anti science" ?

What is your point?

He has no point, he just babbles whatever Richard Dawkins does...........

I'm guessing you can read...

yes, but you aren'ty making any point. Just some random shoots.
Now, how about some solid argumenst? I guess you have none?

But can she (?) comprehend what others write?