Why do people deny evolution?

Pretty hard to see a living dead animal.

Have you seen this creator of yours create anything?

Those who can, do.
Those who cannot, believe in Creationism.


II for one, would Love to hear your proof of concept.


As far as not being there for C14, Ive been there over 100 tims during the process and can attest to its veracity.
I am not a Govt suit. Im a business man with a strong bckground in the sciences of chemistry and geology.

All of my given theories WORK. Hows it going for you?

After lieing dormant for many months, he arises for nearly 30 posts in a little over 2 hours. . . . So. . . .
Shh . . . .
Maybe he'll return to the nether place.

Perhaps many deny evolution because, while it may be an interesting hypothesis, it is presumptuous to consider it theory, supercilious to consider it law. There are those who resent the condescending attitude of science wannabees propagating it as more than it actually is. But not I. To me it is a pathetic attempt to reject any possible obligation to a creator.

The theory of evolution is a hypothesis?

When was it demoted from being a theory?

Well there are fundamental aspects that support it. Such as DNA. When Darwin was developing his hypothesis of evolution he had no idea about DNA. Although he said that if evolution is true there must be a mechanism that drives it. We discovered that mechanism. DNA and how genes function is evidence that evolution is happening. To be in denial about it is just ignorance.

Christans object to the theory of evolution because the consequence of evolution means that we did not evolve from 1 man and 1 woman as the bible suggests. This means the bible got the story wrong. If the story is wrong then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin then the entire premise of christianity is now in question.

So they play their favorites. They assume science HAS to be wrong because the bible sure as hell isn't. They will ignore all the facts and blame people because people are flawed and evil so they MUST be wrong but the bible is "true" and "holy word of god" so it can't be wrong.

But actually, there is a third option. The bible is wrong but at the same time there still could be a god and that god created the system of evolution. All this means is that the writers of the bible books got it wrong. It in no way says a god couldn't exist who also created the fundamental workings of evolution.

If you take this third option it actually is more supported logically than the bible because it reveals that of a consistent god and how a consistent god would behave.

Just look at the other laws of nature, physics, chemistry and biology. They are beautiful so why wouldn't the mechanism of how live evolves be just as beautiful when created by an intelligent being?

The bible is clearly wrong and inconsistent all the time. You take the old testament god who is wrathful, vengeful and a prick and then you compare it to Jesus? They are almost completely polar opposites. You mean to tell me that an all knowing god had a change of heart but the only way he could do that was to experience what it's like to be human? That IS inconsistency. It doesn't logically make any sense. Why would an all knowing good learn something that he MUST have already innately knew to begin with?

Here are the events the way I see them. The torah and the books of the bible attempted to explain the existence of their god. From their point of view the world was chaotic and god was not happy. Death was constantly at your heels and this was gods punishment. You better watch yourself because at any moment god will bring his wrath upon you.

It no longer works because we understand the world more deeply than they did in the past. WE have explanations for why certain things happen, such as illnesses and health problems. We no longer need to explain them away using the wrath of god. Although many still do, it is silly. They ignore the data, they ignore the evidence that proves them wrong because they desperately need their god to exist. No matter how absurd it sounds.

Relax.
I'm not suggesting creationism be taught in schools.

So you not only deny evolution but also the evidence that supports it. Further you state that such evidence is frqudulently derived and "counter evidence" is merely withheld in order only to deny the existence of some creating deity.

I alwaays knew you were a bit of a jiggery pokery linguistic chameleon

You didn't answer the questions.

Finally, the full truth. He's no different than the other creationists that clog these threads.

Well hey, one must contort their very language to fit their dogma. It's a demonstration of the strength of one's faith.

He used to be more open about his worldview, within the last year or so, hes begun "hiding out" as a merely "curious" skeptic.
Denial of evidence usually means active participation in Fundamentalist thinking.

Not that theres anything wrong with that, but its kind of simplistic to try to present science as there merely for the purpose of "denying a creator".

Wanted to be Lamont Cranston, but unable to bring it off.

hadda look that one up. "THE SHADEW KNEWS"

I don't deny the evidence. I find it fascinating.
Folks are always asking evidence for this, evidence for that.
Data, measurable data, anecdotal observations, all are cited as evidence.
But the derivation of conclusions from evidence is, or should be, subject to scrutiny. When scrutiny is sidestepped, folks should not be offended when their conclusions are challenged.

I do not feel offended when my beliefs come under attack. Even though I am right.

Yeah god is not the measurer. The measurer is the brain of an observer inside consciousness. God as conciousness does not measure. Think of the collapsing of the wave function in quantum mechanics the brain is the enquiring measuring agent in the system. Consciousness presents the system and then the brain enqiures as to how the presentation got into existance to be measurered.

If enough qualified folks review and rereview these data and add new (even overlapping evidence from entirely different diciplines) then all these conclusions seem to be reinforced on multi levels. So, you dont deny evidence (even though above you said you do), you now deny the conclusions?
re you ever going to stop your spiral of "logic"?

Merely admit that, in your worldview, you start with the conclusions nd then try to cherry pick any evidence that seems to fit.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I respect science but treat all conclusions with a degree of caution. I think I mentioned before that, even after abandoning my chem major as a sophomore, I scored a passing grade on the chem GRE. Even a so called 'exact science' has its potential flaws.

I think these topics have been covered many times before without agreement:
Complex eye.
Blowhole
Probably more. I'd have to ask spendi.

In my evaluation, the lack of specific linked species has been glossed over by the assertion that "since evolution is factual the links exist". It doesn't fly with me. Nor does the similarity of our DNA with that of the bluebutt babboon, if such a critter exists.

Doesn't mean I have no respect for genetics, nor admiration for the work being done in geology or taxonomy. When someone digs up a bone from a new species of farmersaurus, I read about it eagerly. And, should some creationist claim they failed to get on the boat with Noah, I will point out they were certainly represented in the tar Noah used to caulk the timbers of the ark.

"doesnt fly with you"-- hardly stands as valid rebuttal. Were you more studied up on the "species linkages" youd be amazed daily at how many of these linkages occur per organism.


The linkages demonstrate the connections and evolutionary pathways that various clades have taken. I chalk youre misunderstanding up to mere lack of scientific sophistication in a subject that can get rather boring. (I was never a well studied student of paleo, It was just a series of subjects that were available and some of which were required.

Its easy to not be impressed over something thats not intended for mass consumption. However, mere ignorance is not an excuse to dismiss the subject. All I can assert is that, with 99% assurance, there is no data that refutes anything that the evolutionary pathway demonstrates . AND, much of these data exist from several different unrelated disciplines.

There are several "scientists" who have tried to buffalo their way into the mainstream. By slowly morphing from their training to their true Creationist roots, they have attempted to present data and "evidence" that supports their worldview (mostly a Fundamentalist Christian or Muslim view). IN ALL CASES so far, they've failed miserably and have been debunked.
this includes the phony C14 analyses of Triceratops fossils, to the discovery of human footprints among dino tracks, to the bogus molecular biology presentations of "Irreducible Complexity".