Why do people deny evolution?

What do you think evolution s done for you then frank. Has it made you who you are and how you relate.

Do you think evolution made you agnostic then frank.

Do you think evolution made you agnostic then frank.

Now here is one where you got Tyson spot on defining confirmation bias.

It’s Here: Louisiana Public High Schools Are Teaching The Bible In Science Class

In another email to Principal Rowland, a parent complains that her child’s teacher taught “evolution garbage” in class that day and the principal assured the parent “it will not happen again.”

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/its-here-louisiana-public-high-schools-are-teaching-the-bible-in-science-class/

Do you or dont you believe in consciousness as spirit. Genesis is a metaphysical story which represents the consciousness and unconsciousness of God. The fall from love into good and evil of adam and eve. Its a story that correctly shows the position of consciousness relative to physics. It had to be put in terms of a story so dumb asses might understand it. Its about how conscience came into existence. Dumb ass.

I think people trying to do away with real science are saps and a threat to the long term well being of society.

How then would you explain consciousness and there for conscience in terms physics.

It's an epiphenomenon.

Sounds like a musical instrument in the brass section.

I had a bad one of those once. It took the doctor 3 tries and 2 sets of forceps to work it out.

Atheists trying to "protect" science remind me of theist trying to protect "morality."

I wouldn't say threat. Hindrance maybe.. flies in the ointment

Easy with the music talk. They's wicked mathematics imvolved

"Real science" means never being afraid to say, "I do not know."

"Ah has spoken." - Mammy Yokum

middle way frank. Alfa and omega

Franie's view that science"must concern oitself" with the existence of gods has a really good outcome here at A2K.

Because someone like Gungasnake does not unerstand the process of preservation nd fossilization of ancient bests, makes him automatically default to a
1Young Earth similar to that proposed in GENESIS 1

2 Fossiliztion that includes a process wherein "soft tissues" are sustained MUST, be proof that these "fosssils " are of a young age

All this is, of course, just bullshit and can easily be debunked by eisting evidence. SO, because a god drives your "science" you miss out on the great discoveries and neat pieces of vidence that eist in a real world.

I don't think I've ever actually said that "science must concern itself" with the existence of gods...but if science truly is the study of "what is"...it will concern itself with all possibilities of "what is."

If it arbitrarily dismisses one possibility just because it doesn't like it...it really should not call itself science.

In any case, science DOES NOT LEAD TO "there are no gods" nor to "it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one."

If you, or any atheist here, sees anything illogical about that comment...let's talk about it.

Mostly, I see atheists here getting all bent out of shape because they see the truth of the comment...and don't have the spine to actually discuss it...or acknowledge it.



Fine...and I agree with almost everything you wrote here, FM. But you too easily fall into the trap of suggesting that "because evolution"...therefore "no gods." That kind of thinking is illogical.

True, the Bible seems to have the story all wrong...but, the Bible was written by men of a different age...and they were using the allegories they had available.

You do not get to "there are no gods" or to "it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one" through science...through logic...or through reason. You can only get to those things the way theists get to "there is a GOD!"

Why not acknowledge that?

Youve not done a bang-up job of explaining why that IS??
I dont know of any science dsicpline where the god thing is even factored into any reasearch.
You dont seem to see how such a "conclusion" (which is what it actully is), can possibly assist any discipline with any insite at all. If its invoked, thats sorta the end of any further search for facts and evidence.

If you can, provide an example where such thinking as you champion will add anything to someone's research?


Do you think that this supposed bunch of gods are trnscendant? or do they futz with the everyday?

Even the Catholic Church, one of the biggest roadblocks to midieval science in the Christian world, made huge advances with the Vatican Observatory by admitting that "Unimpeachable evidence supporting (some discipline) " supported a "separation of Catholic "Beliefs" from the natural world as it is evidenced.


Im not going to take any of your advice if you dont mind. If Ive been doing it wrong, Ive been doing it so for 40 years (in 2017), so Im too old to change.
ALso, I dont think your advice comes from a position of really understanding what science is about.