Why do people deny evolution?

@gungasnake,

Quote:

The big lie which is being promulgated by evolutionists is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.

There you have it. Somehow Christianity is based on science and voodoo isn't which means that evolution can't be science. The logic is unassailable.

0 Replies

@Irritation ,

Quote:

we must accept a few basic assumptions:

1. We have no purpose.
2. Moral law is useless, since we are randomly spawned creatures who just happen to be smarter than other primates, due to chance. And since we have no purpose, we may as well all go kill each other.

Why would we have to accept those assumptions? Just because you say so? Life has a purpose which is to create more life. If it didn't have that purpose it wouldn't exist because it clearly wouldn't create more life. We can argue whether creating more life has a philosophical meaning but that doesn't mean there is no purpose.

Quote:

And as to calling evolution science, TRUE SCIENCE must be testable, observable and repeatable. All else are 'theories', which both evolution AND creationism are classified by. Can you test, observe and repeat evoluion?

You don't seem to understand what science is or the meaning of "theory" in science. The standard response to that questioning of theory would be to respond by asking you to jump off a tall building to prove that the "theory" of gravity is not testable, observable or repeatable.

1 Reply

The unlocking of the fantastic complexity of the DNA spiral in recent times is making some scientists stop and think..

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/dna-god.jpg

Jesus said-"And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt 10:30)

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/pyle-hair_zpsd874a214.jpg~original

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

JimmyJ wrote:

I mean, you didn't even reword it. You literally copy/pasted all of it. That is supreme laziness/ignorance if I've ever seen it.

Gunga has been cut/pasting the same bit of propaganda every few months for years now. He never changes any of it.

Gunga is one of our more interesting characters. He is not a Creationist in the normal sense. He's more of an anarchist who prefers some type of alien (extraterrestrial) intervention type of scenario which places humanity here from an external origin from some type of fantasy planet (or moon). He's also a conspiracy lover and an anti-establishment science type who tends to reject any established scientific standard especially in cosmology (which he uses to prop up his house of cards).

Gunga is desperately afraid of evolution because he thinks that morality somehow derives from it (he has stated as much before in posts dating back over five years). Therefore he rejects it out of hand without even thinking about it.

He produces some of the wildest stuff we ever see here on the board, and he's usually a pretty good sport about it even though he takes a lot of heat for it.

0 Replies

@Irritation ,

I accept all of those assumptions.

That is all.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

The unlocking of the fantastic complexity of the DNA spiral in recent times is making some scientists stop and think...

Meanwhile, other scientists have not stopped thinking and continue to learn more and more about the natural world.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Yeah--where the honey pots are located. There's nothing quite like a hive of busy bees for getting the snout into.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

There's a perfectly good scientific explanation for why/how the grand canyon formed.

Life is too perfect? LOL Please, google "flaws in the human anatomy". If that's perfect than wow.

0 Replies

@jespah,

That's why I usually put quotations around "believe" when used before evolution. You have to type it so that everyone can understand it.

0 Replies

@parados,

Don't bother responding. He didn't write any of that. He got it off of the blog that I posted earlier. He literally copy/pasted someone else's non-intellectual rant.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

LOL because a random British Philosopher that I've never heard of became a "believer", that must mean that DNA is too complex to have evolved naturally? Tell me, do you know anything whatsoever at DNA? That "spiral" is called a double helix, and there's a very simple (albeit fascinating) reason for why it is a double helix. There are hydrophilic and hydrophobic regions of DNA. Base pairs have hydrogen bonding and base stacking in order to remain stable in the cell.

0 Replies

It's the sheer astronomical mathematical complexity of DNA and living creatures that amazes scientists and makes some of them say "This could NOT have occurred by random chance!"

For example here's a rerun of one of my earlier stunning A2K posts-
The retina is lined with light-sensitive rods and cones-

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/Rods_Cones_zps3ac45992.gif~original

Here's a typical rod, note the light-sensitive cells stacked up inside it..

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/rod-structure_zpscc8301e6.gif~original

..like a tube of Pringles-

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/prings1_zps88b508b3.jpg~original

There are 120 million tubes of Pringles (rods) in the human eye (and another 7 million cones), each one containing stacks of individual pringles which takes the numbers way off the scale, and scientists can't even begin to fathom how they "evolved", let alone explain how they "wired themselves up" like a printed circuit board and then connected themselves up to the brain-

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/retina-plc_zps2672925b.gif~original

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/Pringleskit_zps9a31276f.jpg~original

3 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

It's the sheer astronomical mathematical complexity of DNA and living creatures that amazes scientists and makes some of them say "This could NOT have occurred by random chance!"

Most scientists think the opposite.

1 Reply

@Romeo Fabulini,

Would you like me to point out all of the human flaws in the eye? Humans have horrible eyesight! In fact, owl eyes are much more complex than humans. Does that mean god favors creatures like owls?

http://www.strangedangers.com/images/content/133910.jpg

Your insistence that scientists say "this could not have happened.." is a load of crap! The exact opposite is true of over 95% of all scientists.

We have fossils of the eye evolving. The first eyes were found in the early Phanerozoic eon sometime before the Cambrian explosion. Back then the eye was quite simple compared to today. An eruption of evolution in different forms called the "Cambrian explosion" produced many different variations of the eye throughout the Eukaryotes. The more successful variations moved on and continued evolving for the next billion years.

Everything that you think is a "mystery" has most likely already been explained by science... Please do some research before you state absolutely that "the complexity of the eye baffles scientists". This is not the case.

2 Replies

@JimmyJ,

It's worth having horrible eyesight if it avoids looking like that.

Owls have ghastly culinary facilities and sit on a branch all night in all weathers.

Of course the " complexity of the eye baffles scientists". It always will. Knowing a little about it does not constitute being unbaffled.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

And the owl has to wait for the mating season, a short window about Easter-time, to get the leg over.

btw--the process which caused you to say that the complexity of the eye does not baffle scientists is easy to be unbaffled about. You were lured along a path with crude and base flattery and you paid for it as well. It made you feel good thinking you have a scientific sensibility because having such a thing is superior to those who haven't. And they know how to serve it up too.

Temptation eh? You must know what Christians say about that.

Had Christianity not happened, and it could easily have not, I don't think you would ever give a moment's thought to the complexity of the eye. Or to lingerie.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

the scientists that agree with Romero aren't the biologists who discovered all those structures. They can go back through early species (like a Limulus) and see how eyes are arranged therein.
Or how RNA ccomplishes what it does without another strand .
I think Romero said that his education was in the 70's when microbiology and biochemistry were very immature inquiries. Its amazing how much weve learned in the last 10 years alone

0 Replies

@spendius,

No, the complexity of the eye does not "baffle" science. The word "baffle" implies confusion. We are not confused about the origin of the eye or how it evolved.

And don't hate on owls. They see everything.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

btw--the process which caused you to say that the complexity of the eye does not baffle scientists is easy to be unbaffled about. You were lured along a path with crude and base flattery and you paid for it as well. It made you feel good thinking you have a scientific sensibility because having such a thing is superior to those who haven't. And they know how to serve it up too.

Not sure I know what you're talking about here.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

Quote:

Not sure I know what you're talking about here.

Baffled eh? And about something much less baffling than eyes.

Led up the garden path. How's that? Encouraging you to run before you could walk.

You haven't got a scientific bone in your body Jim.

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know