Why do people deny evolution?

You are a clown, fat man.

Putting the crap aside for a moment, FM...

...I will undoubtedly be thinking about you a lot today...and in a very positive way. My sister, Madeline, is in from California...and today we are going to the American Museum of Natural History. Lots of rocks...and indications that science is doing a great job of showing that humans evolved from lesser forms.

Without a doubt each instance will bring you to mind...and I will feel pride in knowing someone who knows so much about these things. You probably would never guess it, but I am an ignoramus on the subjects of rocks and evolution.

Anyway, I'm sure your moniker will come up during my conversations with her. Hope you do not mind me thinking very good thoughts about you.

If the catholic church accepts evolution then it must also accept that consciousness is not apart of evolution. The Catholic church believes in life after death so for that to be possible there has to be a constant in evolutionary change. So for there to be life after death consciousness would have to exist independent of physics. In other words consciouness does not die because consciousness is already dead in physics terms anyway.

One thing I learned at the museum today is that there is a gemstone called a Padparadscha Sapphire. I never heard of one before...but one of the museum hostesses introduced my sister and me to them.

The main one in the museum’s collection is one of the most beautiful stones I’ve ever seen.

Here are two photos of Padparadscha sapphires. I hope you all agree they are special.

Yeah nice stones frank. But back on topic and if consciousness is non physical it would effectively put the consciousness of each individual as being the nonlocal god of the local mind. Consciousness is always stationary to the c limit.

It means on death of the brain the indivuals consciousness will become god and the big bang it will be like it never happened and you as an individual dream a life and go back to being nothing. Consciousness being nothing.

This is a basic truth - something you cannot deny:

Like the beliefs of theistic scientists, acknowledging that there is a possibility that a god created evolution would be irrelevant to science.

God created science in the big bang which you happen to be in as an observer. God is nothing and so causes happening somethings like big bangs to happen and then creates observers with god as there consciousness to sit around talking about evolution.

Liked the green car ragers.

That is an insult to science. I hope you can get past whatever caused you to post it...and see it as such.

Worth repeating.

It is absolute blather when applied the way Setanta applied it, Mesquite.

Existence is a very mysterious thing...and to suppose that it always has been is not a failure of logic and reason. Neither is the idea that a single thing existed...and from that evolved all the rest of what we seem to see. And that single thing could be a singularity leading to a Big Bang...or it could be a god.

There is no failure of logic or reason...except from anyone insisting...

a) there is a god...or it is more likely there is a god than that there are no gods...or...

b) there are no gods...or it is more likely there are no gods than that there are gods.

Frankly, the failure of logic and reason in A2K...seems to be coming mostly from the atheists who constantly pound themselves on the back talking about how, through logic and reason, they arrive at the conclusion there are no gods...or that it is more likely there are no gods than that there are.

Logic, reason, and science cannot get one there!

The singularity is god frank. Fish consciousness and human consciousness are the exact indistinguishable samething . Its the brains that differ in there ability to understand the consciouse singularity that they are inside of that differs. Consciouness is dead because it never had to happen to live. So consciousness (love) cannot die because it didnt have to happen. Happening moving things die.

How is it an insult to science?

Most of the A2K atheists that I am aware of (edgar excepted) do NOT assert that there are no gods. They simply do not have a belief in any gods thus far described by human kind. To form an opinion on the likelihood of some undescribed entity would be "a complete failure to deploy logic and reason".

Whatever it is frank's against it.

A claim that if there is a god, then "intelligent design" is likely is based upon several undemonstrated propositions. First, that if there were a god, it would be a creator god--and even a cursory review of human concepts of deities shows that there is no universal assumption that any particular god or set of gods are creators. Second, it is based upon an assumption that if there were a god, that god would be omniscient and omnipotent. It is rather obvious that there is an assumption that if there were a god, that god would be the same as the god of the Jews and Christians. Even that god, as described in scripture, is clearly not omniscient and omnipotent--either that, or that god is almost inconceivably cruel and sadistic. The entire proposition is a glaring example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. This is an assumptive fallacy, and at the linked page, this is the discussion: Where people have a high need for certainty and control, extreme views provide what may seem to be a defensible position, as you only need to look in one direction for the 'enemy'. Dividing the world into good and bad, right and wrong also plays to certainty needs, as your friends and enemies can now be clearly identified. Assuming that any god would be a creator god, and would be omniscient and omnipotent is the source of the fallacious argument that if there were a god, intelligent design would automatically be possible. Once again, far too many people assume that if they can conceive of something, it is possible.

In answering the thread's question, how can people that deny evolution change their minds and accept it, considering there is no free-will, and people are hard-wired to stay within the safety of their tribe (that believes in a god/intelligent design). The question itself of this thread seems to assume that many can have an epiphany and change thinking that was drummed into their heads as a child? Society does not change quickly. Baby steps (over generations/decades/centuries).

Anything that may account for existence is...and well should be...of extreme interest and relevance to science.

Suggesting that one possible explanation is irrelevant simply because you blindly guess it to be wrong...is an insult to science.