Why do people deny evolution?

Nope, I don't girly. Furthermore you also seem to have a deeply developed need for Ad Hominems if someone disagrees strongly with your vieuws.
Now, of course that is telling us something, isn't it, girly?

The Lady......protest too much!

Yep, there Q goes again. Rampant raving sexism.

There it is again! The AH!

Now, can you tell us why you believe in the evolution shite?

Yep, there YOU go again, quahog, using sexist language with demeaning intent, and refusing to own up to it. You fully deserve any so-called "ad hominem" posts (and you also refuse to own up to the fact that you post more than your own share of ad hominems.
And stop trying to pass off recycled creationist dogma as in any sense unbiased fact. Stop reposting versions of Haldane's Dilemma, which even Haldane admitted was wrong. Probabilities are only multiplicative when all mutations separating species or subspecies happen with one breeding pair at only one time. That's totally not the way evolution works. If you knew anything at all about the fossil record you would know that manyDIFFERENT mutations go on simultaneously and are spereading through the breeding population simultaneously. You would also know that those mutations increase reproductive fitness and spread througfh the population more rapidly than you think. They don't die out. It is only after hundreds of thousands of years and many mutations that serve important functions in themselves, end up comining into a new form. That's what happened with birds coming from dinosaurs, when all those PREEXISTING
-mutations, bipedality, flow0through breathing, feathers, and so on, coalesced to produce birds. Each of the mutations served a pre-bird purpose. Try learning a little something about natural history, rather than uncriutically accepting creationist crap.

Looks to me like you're pretty much the champion here at being put on ignore, snaKKKe, though quahog may be gaining on you, for the simple reason that you and the actual existant universe have not been on speaking terms for years now. Any stupid conspiracy theory that comes walking by, and you immedkiately go up to it and try to shake its hand, or in some cases tentacle.

I understand. He probably speaks British, Canadian, or Australian

I see gungasnaKKKe has come through with another case of drive-by thumbs-downing.

jee, and still NO evidence...how come?

I know,I have them on ignore, but I sometimes read their nonsense if I want to have a good laugh!

aha, maybe that explains why you keep saying there's no evidence--you put all the people who continually post the overwhelming amount of evidence FOR evolution on ignore, becasuse the facts would burst the fantasy bubble you live your life in. Go back and read the last several pages again (or for the first time), quahog, facts, photos, and citations in the hundreds. "No evidence"? You're a total loon, nothing but.Well. no. I take that back, you're not just a total loon, you're an intellectual coward as well.

Nope, you are misreading me now. What else is new?
And no I don't put them on ignore because they have lots of evidence.
They very simply have not.

And no a citation is of course NO PROOF and no a poto from an non-transitional fossil is NO proof of course

Just show us some really intermediate forms!

So far, there has been NOT ONE PHOTO unless people pre believe in the evolution bullocks shite garbage religion!

I just piss on this garbage! One day you have to do the same!

I put them on ignore, because they don't speak wisely! (=eufemism)

But I know you will read what you want to read as long as it in line with your belief system.

does anyone still give a **** what quahog "thinks"?. Hes been free of the thought process since hes shown up on A2K.

I suspect he/she/it just types, bypassing the thought laborious process. I put it on Ignore a long time ago. Life's too short to let inane attention-whoring sidetrack you.

You really are blind,,quahog, aren't you?
You really have no idea of actual biology or what evolution says happened, do you?
You have absolutely no idea of what an "intermediate form" actually is, have you?
Just your fantasies of what you think evolution should show us.
We've shown you dozens of intermediate forms, from apes to humans, from dinosaurs to birds.
All you've come up with is "half a nose" or "half an eye" as your criteria for imtermediate forms, and complained about "complete forms".
OF COURSE A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL IS A COMPLETE FORM. IT IS ALSO A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL ANYWAY.
By definition, a transitional fossil is going to be a fully functional living organism, i.e. a "complete form" in your terms. it has to be to reproduce and produce a next generation.
I suggest you actually look at the DATA, TONS OF IT, which exist on such topics as evolution of the eye, or the evolution of birds, which you clearly haven't done, since you're worefully ignorant of what is KNOWN on those topics. There are, for example, living organisms with DIFFERENT FORMS OF EYES, which represent different stages of functionality and form and different complexities and capabilities between the aaarchaic sensitive patches on the skin and the multifarous forms of eyes found today--there ARE analogues of what you MAY mean by your ambiguous term "half an eye" (which so far only YOU use, so gods alone have any idea what you actually mean by it) . In the human evolutionary tree there are multifarous forms intermediate showing the transition from arborealism to walking upright (and in hands forms that show ability for fine manipulation rather than tree swinging)and from small brqins to much larger and more complex brains, which are the two major series of changes that made modern humans. The evidence is there as we have shown you. REPEATEDLY.

As I say, the evidence is there.=, if you weren't an intellectual coward and refused to look. It's as plain as the half a nose on your face.

yeah, FM and FBM, I'm wondering too why I waste time on this idiot. He's obviously willfully ignorant about what is actually known, and he doesn't seem to be able to discuss anything intelligently beyond what he gets from creationist websites (and he doesn't discuss that intelligently either, he basically just parrots back what he's read in slightly altered form). And he accepts uncritically whatever David Icke, the laughingstock of the British Isles, posts. Gods save us from credulous fools.

I recommend Ignore in this case. It makes for a better SNR.

The only way we see his crap is when someone who actually does engage with facts (like you do), quotes him and then I wonder how dumb he really is. I actually thought he left until some people were quoting him .
Hes gotta be putting us on. He cannot be as stupid as he sounds in print.

SNR. Snore? Senior? Sennacherib? Sarcastic Neural Response? Sorry, it's outside my TLA lexicon.

Sorry. Signal-t0-noise ratio.