Why do people deny evolution?

@Wilso,

Wilso wrote:

FBM wrote:

ellease1 wrote:

Quote:
When someone is opposing a genuine theory, s/he is engaging in denialism.

Like the one that denies there is only consciousness in existence , forms disappear and reappear....

In what way does this fulfill the criteria for being a scientific theory?

Whatever he/she is on - I want some.

I thought so at first, but now I'm not so sure. There's a certain level of lucidity that I'd like to retain...

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

When someones mind is so made up, they will deny everything including carefully studied evidence and experiments.

Science has also proved that all you experience is in your head. Are you going to deny this ? For instance can you present any evidence of the lunch you had on the Friday of last week? You may still have the packaging and your witnesses but where is the lunch?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

In what way does this fulfill the criteria for being a scientific theory?

Without the experimenter where is there scope for scientific theory?

0 Replies

@hingehead,

ellease1 wrote:

Quote:
In what way does this fulfill the criteria for being a scientific theory?

Without the experimenter where is there scope for scientific theory?

hingehead wrote:

Edit: @ hingehead: I wasn't actually responding to you. I just wanted to borrow your image.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Neither affirm nor deny. I honestly don't know what their status is vis a vis real numbers.

Imaginary, of course. The only possible issue here is on the other side: what makes real numbers real? How are they not imaginary too? Mathematically, the R space is defined as any other space is defined, with a few axioms.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

That's exactly my question. How can imaginary numbers be any more imaginary than other numbers? This has messed with my head for a long time. I'm hoping someone can help me with this. Seriously. I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic. I pissed off a handful of people on another forum for asking about this.

Edit: http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/06/q-are-numbers-real/

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

In what way does this fulfill the criteria for being a scientific theory?

Furthermore the experimenter is a fact not a theory.

1 Reply

@ellease1,

Please read the definition of theory again, then re-read your last comment.

1 Reply

@ellease1,

ellease1 wrote:

Quote:
When someones mind is so made up, they will deny everything including carefully studied evidence and experiments.

Science has also proved that all you experience is in your head. Are you going to deny this ? For instance can you present any evidence of the lunch you had on the Friday of last week? You may still have the packaging and your witnesses but where is the lunch?

What if d-o-g spelled cat?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Please read the definition of theory again, then re-read your last comment.

Please make sure you are fully awake when reading.

I DO NOT DISPUTE THE DEFINITION OF A THEORY JUST THE WAY IT IS UNDERSTOOD !!!

THEORY: It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a [VAST BODY] of evidence

"Vast body" being the operational word here.

But what does this mean ? In plain English (as you should know seeing as you teach the subject ) it simply means A CONVENTIONAL RELATIONSHIP! What ever is in that relationship is RELATED BY CONVENTION!!! In layman term it simply means a lot of people in general agreement.

WORDS AND THE CONCEPTS THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED OUT OF THEM ARE NOT FACTS!

Words only convey the facts

1 Reply

@Wilso,

Quote:

What if d-o-g spelled cat?

What if d-o-g spelled cat?

0 Replies

@ellease1,

So what's your point?

1 Reply

ellease says:

Code:

 "Vast body" being the operational word here. 



But what does this mean ? In plain English (as you should know seeing as you teach the subject ) it simply means A CONVENTIONAL RELATIONSHIP! What ever is in that relationship is RELATED BY CONVENTION!!! In layman term it simply means a lot of people in general agreement. 



WORDS AND THE CONCEPTS THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED OUT OF THEM ARE NOT FACTS!



Words only convey the facts

No. It does not mean "a conventional relationship" at all. That is a figment of your imagination. You ought to look up "evidence", since you are so into stange definitions. Don't try to go all lit. crit. on us, A"vast body of evidence" is a whole lot of cold hard facts on the ground. It not a lot of people in general agreement.

1 Reply

@FBM,

His point is he thinks he's Descartes.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Does appear that way, dunning. I'm more in the market for something a little more Humean, though.

0 Replies

First, talking about some "Jesus is an historical myth" thesis is nonsense--that clearly assumes that there is evidence for Jesus (which there isn't) and takes the back-door approach of theists who demand that skeptics prove that there is no god. Those making a claim have the burden of proof, not those who say i don't believe that.

As for Ellease, is ee no particular lucidity in her ramblings. It all looks like word salad to me.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I don't even see why the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth is relevant. It's the claims of miracles and divinity that are at question for me. Affirming that the person existed entails nothing whatsoever about the latter claim. History abounds with outlandish myths built around people who really lived.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Precisely--it is not the possibility that some goofy self-styled rabbi wandered Palestine 2000 years ago which is at issue, it's all the baggage that surrounds the name "Jesus" which is evoked just by saying the name which is untenable. Raising the dead, turning water into wine, feeding a "multitude" (a sufficiently vague term) with a basket of loaves and fishes--those are the claims which come along with the name "Jesus" which make it a sucker's game to even get into such a discussion.

1 Reply

And me thinking this thread was all about the stupidity of evolution. and not research into the myth of the never existed jesus who is just a myth!

Hmmmmm.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Jesus was real, of this there is no doubt.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know