Why do people deny evolution?

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

So, you don't even understand the fundamentals of some simple logic?

figures and explains your reactions very precisely!

You keep crying about evidence when there is plenty. How about instead of just continuously claiming there is none, that you go read a few books.

How could a theory result in multiple fields of science if it were not true? So if evolution is a religion, that's fine if you wanna attempt to discredit it in that way. (ironic in it's own way) but it has accomplished more than any religion has.

I always love it when believers and theists attempt to say science requires faith or some field of science is a religion. It is like they are indirectly saying that they know religion and faith is weak so they want to attempt to lump science into the same nonsense bag they are in.

It's the proverbial, "Na ah, well if I'm stupid, so are you!"

0 Replies

I have read a lot of books. So what?

There is very simply no evidence for macro evolution and you can show NONE.

and again, lots of logical mistakes you make here, mate! certainly a lot of circular reasoning. Why do you do that, man? That is illogical man!

1 Reply

Quote:

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

0 Replies

Quote:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

I have read a lot of books. So what?

There is very simply no evidence for macro evolution and you can show NONE.

and again, lots of logical mistakes you make here, mate! certainly a lot of circular reasoning. Why do you do that, man? That is illogical man!

I already have. WE are evidence of macro evolution. We have genes that can be traced back. How do you think we work out the evolutionary branches? I guess you think we just make it up.

Everything living is a transitional species. We are constantly evolving although very slowly. Generation by generation. Over hundreds of thousands of generations the change comparisons between the first generation to the hundred thousand generation will reveal the differences.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

WE are evidence of macro evolution. We have genes that can be traced back. How do you think we work out the evolutionary branches? I guess you think we just make it up.

The existence of genes, or the role of DNA in replication is not sufficient to prove speciation.

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

genes, or the role of DNA in replication is not sufficient to prove speciation.

True, but without DNA it wouldn't be possible. Since there is this mechanism it strongly supports it. We have other factors that prove speciation.

1 Reply

@neologist,

nobody tries to "prove" speciation . We conclude by evidence. We know for certain that different sets of genes on the same chromosomes are either :turned off" or turned on" and each new configuration of the various(off or on) alleles results in a new phenotype. Its really neat how this just "shows up" with new forms being adapted to totally different surroundings (coincidence?? I think not). We can also see the genetic variation in time for asforms of the same organisms that have been "fossilized" for periods of time that still preserve the DNA.
"geographic isolation" has resulted in varied forms of same species that each show variations in their several genomes. Anadromous Fish, stuck behind dams on theConnecticut River, since the early colonial days, show unique forms and genomic differences between their anadromous ancestral "cousins" and those that have been "trapped" behind the dams nd survived for about 400 years.

Consider the Neanderthals, (we can see that the genomes of a Neanderthal, human and chimp clearly show the differences that allow us to conclude that all these are different yet highly derived species that shared some kind of common ancestor. Itd be neat if someone could find the DNA of H sapiens idaltu (The old ones).

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I think for a lot of people, if they have never studied biology in depth, a lot of evolution won't make any sense. The process is not a simple one to explain. Since there are a lot of factors that need to be understood, it is easy to come to the wrong conclusion, like many theists do.

But I always find it suspect that the ONLY science that a theist objects to, is the science that contradicts their theology. They never seem to complain about any other science. In some cases there will be the militant theists who are adamant that science is all wrong about everything yet they will utilize things daily that have been developed directly out of science.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I get a laugh from one area. The Creationists deny the validity of radioisotope dating and Carbon 14 dating in particular. Yet, theyve all jumped on a bandwagon where theC14 test has been fraudulently conducted in order to "prove" that dinosaurs lived from 25 to 40 K years ago.

Quahog "quote mined several scientists from noted creationist bullshit artists. Henry Morris, for example, had made the very statement that Quahog curiously presented in his last rant. Here it is;

Quote:

.No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Jesus Quahog, dont write "Set up lines" as if you thought em up yourself, my browser has feature that allows me to "look up" and quote in Google just by clicking on it and onto a "look this line up in Google" app.

Yet Quahog IS NOT A CREATIONIST, he only uses their resources to try to shoot down science. Why doesnt he, if hes so "open minded" question the crap the Creationists print when we have debunked them over and over. he seems to hve a one sided view of science.

Credibility? Quahog has none.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I think part of the issue is, some of these creationists are really just trying to sell books or sell christianity. They make a huge living off of propagating it. It becomes a racket to them so they will smudge the data to support the creationist view point because that is what their revenue source is. They have motivation to lie.

They aren't warriors for the theology, they are just wolves in sheep costumes pretending to be creationists. It is much easier to dupe a christian because they are already taught to just believe rather than review the data, do the research and use your reasoning skills to come to a proper conclusion.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I think the main guys like Morrison, Macready Price, Ham,Gish, Johnton, Austen etc etc are all "true believers". They dont push the worldview , they pretty much live it. Its hard foor me to envision some of the ways these guys act and live to believe its all an act just for profit.
Even the Evangelical "megachurch dwellers" had simple beginnings ( however they, I admit may have let mammon get to them after a bit)

0 Replies

@Krumple,

neologist wrote:

genes, or the role of DNA in replication is not sufficient to prove speciation.

Krumple wrote:

True, but without DNA it wouldn't be possible. Since there is this mechanism it strongly supports it. We have other factors that prove speciation.

You're quite right. DNA is necessary. In itself, however, it is not sufficient.

It seems clear to me that those who believe in speciation have accumulated a massive amount of necessary evidence. So I have great respect for those who have made discoveries applicable to such diverse fields as archaeology and medicine.

2 Replies

@neologist,

why archeology? you "believe" the data that shows familial associations on mummies but refuse to acknowledge the accuracy of sames when it comes to clades of animals and plants.

I wonder why that is?

Religions demand fealty, science doesnt. You can always become a barrista

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

You're quite right. DNA is necessary. In itself, however, it is not sufficient.

But it is significant. It is a very important piece. But I'll grant you that it isn't sufficient alone. However; there are plenty of other aspects that help support it.

See the funny thing is, no theist can argue that micro evolution isn't happening. We have lots of documented cases that prove it happens. The thing they don't realize is if you continue with this process, it arrives at speciation.

A good analogy is a stair case. You might only be able to see, ten steps in this stair case and assume it only has ten steps. But it could have a hundred floors of steps. To stop at the ten you will wrongly assume that was the end of the steps.

Hundreds of generations of micro-evolution will result when comparing the older generations with the newer generations, will have significant differences. Ring species are a great example of this process. Repeat a ring species cycle enough times and you'll have vastly different traits.

Time is the only factor in this process and if you have hundreds of millions of years, it is easy to get a lot of genetic diversity.

So to really be honest here. A theist isn't really arguing anything genuine. They are just mad that science has a counter explanation to their biblical stories. If we didn't originate from two humans, Adam and Eve then it calls into question the validity of the original sin story. Without original sin then the entire christian theology breaks down. This is why theists desperately need to combat the theory of evolution. The only problem is they have mountains of evidence to deny and reject or ignore.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

wrong! I see only speculations and wrong analogies, but NO PROOF

the stair case analogy is soo ridiculous, even unbelievable you need this stupid and wrong analogy ( do I need to spell it out for you why it is wrong???)

and of course again mixing up micro evolution with macro evolution.

No one can deliver any proof because there is very simply none,

but it is fascinating to see people here twisting facts in order to keep their religion of evolution in tact.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

and of course again mixing up micro evolution with macro evolution.

Mixing up? They are connected. micro being shorter term while macro being longer term changes over time. Why not actually take a biology class so you might have an idea of what you are even talking about?

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Quote:
Mixing up? They are connected. micro being shorter term while macro being longer term changes over time.
Why not actually take a biology class so you might have an idea of what you are even talking about?

well, let's see:

Quote:

Why not actually take a biology class so you might have an idea of what you are even talking about?

Hmmm again a cheap shot of an ad hominem. We all know what that means.
But ah well, you really have no clue and don't know me at all. But ues, I have had biology classes and yes, once I believed in the religion called evolution, because it is cramped down our thorats from a very early age. A good time to start propaganda. But I guess you haven't figured that out yet, right?

Quote:

Mixing up? They are connected. micro being shorter term while macro being longer term changes over time.

yes, mixing them up. You have given here only a defintion of sorts. Sounds nice, and it may ring true for you. However, there has to be provided some evidence to make this nonsense true. so far you haven't delivered any, apart from circular reasoning, wrong analogies, and of course the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. All logical mistakes to hide the fact, probably unconsciously, that there is no evidence anywhee to be found.

One day you have to face the fact that the Emperor has No Clothes.

But, eh, it is a process, so take your time, mate.

I really don't care.

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

Hmmm again a cheap shot of an ad hominem. We all know what that means

In your case its a statement of a simple fact. Embrace your moronity

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

I am a Christian and have no problems with evolution. And yes it is only logical to require evidence, you don't hand over the money until you've checked the merchandise. But how can you not notice evolution on this planet? Living things evolve into existence, they don't just magically pop out of thin air, eg. A human fetus to an adult human. Even technology has an evolving process, we haven't always had cars. They were determined by an evolving process in order to exist. Everything on this planet has an evolving process. The law of physics doesn't allow things to just magically appear into existence without an evolving process. It's unrealistic to think so.

2 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know