Why do people deny evolution?

Enjoy the strawberries and whipped cream, FM.

Not sure why you had to trot out that tired "one trick pony" nonsense again. I comment on all sorts of issues...and I start threads on all sorts of issues...probably more than most in both those categories.

I hear atheists here mocking theists often...and I want the atheists to know they are part of the thing they are mocking. There is nothing wrong with my doing so...and it does not make me a one trick pony.

You never did answer my question, by the way.

I made a reply to an atheist's comment about "denialism" in theists. What do you see in that statement that you consider wrong, unfair, or illogical?

Here is the statement again:

Denialism runs deep. You can show an atheist that logic, reason, and science cannot lead one to "there are no gods in REALITY"...nor to "it is more likely there are no gods in REALITY than that there are"...and they will still deny it."

I can see FM's point, and I suspect I'm far from being alone.

I comment on as wide a variety of subjects as you or FM...or any of the others who are apparently bothered by what I write.

I initiate threads on as wide a variety of topics as you or FM...or any of the others who are apparently bothered by what I write.

I am not a one-trick pony...no matter how many people feel that I am.

What I do is to call attention to the fact that the fault some people have with theists...are faults they exhibit themselves.

The atheists in this forum DO NOT LIKE THAT at all.

I have to live with that...and am able to do so very nicely.

I think you misunderstood my meaning or intent. My response to the fish with feet image posted by that other member was merely to point out that a single verifying example, while it may show a step necessary, it is not sufficient to prove or demonstrate anything other than the one time existence of a fish with the ability to navigate on land. Such fish exist today, I understand. So, one has to wonder why the creator of such an image felt he had delivered a coup de etat to those who do not subscribe to the theory of speciation.

I am not a creationist, BTW. Just sayin'.

You may be interested in this latest info on the Oso mudslide
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/laser-map-gave-clue-to-oso-slides-ferocity/

We are not on the same page. I think I might have failed you in Geometry.

When you develop your opinion based on your weak understanding of the opinions of others, you will have difficulty interpreting subsequent information that either contradicts or supports these opinions, even if you happen to find another supercillious jpeg buried on the internet.

At last! A post of singular intellectual acuity.
Your brilliance shines ever so brightly on the discussion.

The fish with legs is just a symbol. It's not like they put all their nuts in one bag by designing it.

Very true, Edgar. I'm sorry if I did not make my point more clearly. I've always thought the fish with legs image rather funny, since it spoofed an irrelevant nominal christian belief.

Jesus, Neo, cut down the coffee. You're more than usually obnoxious and overbearing today.

A day off in the middle of the week. I need help and I know it.

We ponies are unable to assess the number of "tricks" we bring. I consider others who tell me that my bag-o-tricks is severely limited. I just pass this off to you as one who has seen your many ways of digging up and displaying your own "dead horse"

VIZ.
Heres a whole thread about "DENIAL" of evolution and you somehow are trying to turn it into a display of your position on "gods"
(I think we are more than aware of what makes you tick)

Atheists really have no responsibility to explain WHY they are atheists. That responsibility resides solely with those who"BELIEVE" in a super power.

As far as your position in italics,once again, I remind you that this thread has been about denialism of evolution.

Therefore,I choose not to play your game cause the whole thing lies on the side of proving or disproving the existence of Sasquatches. I dont see any competent evidence for sasquatch so I conclude it doesnt exist. Period. If you wish to argue with how I arrive at that conclusion, You are welcome. I just say, in advance, that you have been , to date, unable to verbalize anything compelling about your belief system.

Creation creates in the moment. Creation creates the future moment by moment. So the mover does not move. Evolution is being created moment by moment by the creator. Think about it the future of evolution exists only in the moment. The big bang is happening right now . Now is the moment of creation created by the nonmoving creator.

Who is the creator, Einstein, and what evidence do you have for your goofy claims?

I have no "belief system"...so there is no way to verbalize anything compelling about it.

I HAVE verbalized my position on many issues very compellingly.

The fact that evolution apparently has happened...says absolutely NOTHING about whether a god exists or not...and says absolutely NOTHING about whether there has been intelligent design.

You are being stubborn...for whatever reason. Way back when I first said this, you became belligerent...and I chose at that time to suspend discussion of it by leaving A2K for a bit. That will not happen again.

IF there is the possibility of a god...then there is the possibility of intelligent design...no matter what science is discovering about how humans came to be humans. That is something you cannot seem to acknowledge...just as theists cannot seem to acknowledge that IF there is a god...that does not mean evolution is not a reality.

Imformation transfers its self into the future but exists only in the moment. So the moment is the solution of the creator.

Word salad--i'll just have to assume that you're shooting your mouth off without evidence.

I suppose if only one fossil shows up in the record it may be a more open debate. However, fish-to amphibians is a well documented sequence of transitional fossils that are clearly fossils of fish-- then mostly fish---then fish with some amphibian traits---and then amphibians with fish like features. When amphibians show up in the fossil record they "calde themselves out as primitive to more advanced forms (all seemingly arranged by time and geography).
The fossil "fish with developing feet" which was Tiktaliik, also cpntained several other more tetrapod features, like a neck vertebral segment and a head that was moveable (no fish has that, even mudskippers). It had eyes on top of its head, it had clear bone structures that show a developing set of "legs" (not whip features or actual fins like mudskippers or snakehead fish or walking catfish.

There are hundreds of "tranitional" fossils that occupy limited temporal and geographic ranges and these can easily be interpreted and dated and we see how well they fit an evolutionry model. Even insects and plants show transitional fossils that allow scientists to asses the path that these organisms took through time.

Science is at a point where we are able to predict with fair accuracy what kind of fossils we may expect to find in any known mapped sedimentary unit. No one has yet found a :Drowned elephant: in the Cambrian seas, or a trilobite fossil past the mid prmian, or Dinosaurs past the late Cretaceous. I remember gunga (I think) who said that'of course dinos are at the end of the Cretceous because youve defined that as the terminal Creataceous "> That may be true to a point, but there is so much other data that demos the accurate dates of any volcanic or metamorphic deposits of that age, and several unique geologic features (including a terminal layer of iridium and two other rarer elements that occur in consistent ratios worldwide.).

The neat thing about science is that it WORKS, and as far as my career, its provided me with some really powerful tools that allow me accurate mapping and location of resources that require stratigraphy and paleontological data to be RIGHT.
Try that with any Creationist or ID expansion of data. The only ones even close are the IDers who subscribe to a "theistic evolution"> The many scientists who claim acceptance of science flavored by religion are still unable to present ANY evidence for the religious half of their toolbox. I usually try to be polite and only get testy when , in public, these guys try to abscond with facts and begin to insert fact-free opinions about their beliefs.

IDers have but one hurdle to clear(so Ive been told)> If they can show a simple sign of "intelligence" regarding life on the planet, theyre home.
Im still waiting . The Discovery Institute, in its 1999 Wedge Documen, promised research results and scientific data about intelligence in the UNIVERSE, yet theyve failed so far. (I dont even know whether these "Wedgies" even are around anymore)

I cant force you to accept anything that you wish to not accept. However, thats sorta what this whole thread has been about.

I hope you are not going into insult or avoidance mode, FM. That seems to be the atheistic default reaction these days to almost anything that is not part of the party line.

Any chance you can comment on what I just said up above.

It is on topic.

.

WOW, you are really in your minds paradise Frank. I remember when you left A2K, you were swearing at everyone who bothered to debate with you. Now you seem to be blaming others for your own belligerence. When you became rude and began posting in huge bold letters, I think many people just gave up because you just were acting weird.
Now you wish to apply a bit of revisionism to that time.

(I wouldna brought it up were I you- because theres still a bunch of people who remember the erratic Frank of old).