Why do people deny evolution?

You're not a christian when you have no problem with evolution. As a Christian you are required to acknowledge the facts about how things are chosen in the universe. Choosing is the mechanism of creation.

The reason you are required to acknowledge these facts is because any religion focuses on the agency of decisions, as an inherently subjective issue. You see the fact of a decision made, then you can make opinion on the agency of that decision. There is no religion without creationism.

Buddhism, Odinism. There are probably more. It's not necessary to believe in an invisible wizard to be religious.

yep, evolutionism.

you are mixing up micro with macro evolution.

Subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, which makes all religion neccessarily creationist. That is also why there is freedom of opinion and religion in the constitutions of democracies. You of course would replace that law with saying, all conclusions must be forced by evidence, or else! You reject subjectivity altogether evolutionist.

And somebody who does not acknowledge the obvious fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe such as you is just some kind of cause and effect freak, not a science fan.

christianity has to explain relativity and how it fits in with god. Nonlocality as consciousness explains the observers position in the local event reguards that. We cant just stick our heads in the sand like an ostrich. Dont know if thats true about ostriches though. That facts are god exists and so does relativity so there has to be a connection.

well, relativity is completely wrong. Einstein was an idiotic village idiot!

Logic break. Subjectivity is not inherently creationist. I understand and engage in subjectivity, but am not a creationist. I subjectively experience others' publications of facts regarding their experiments and others' responses to them. I subjectively consider what is proposed about an invisible, undetectable creator-being. I subjectively regard the latter as the weaker of the hypotheses. Why? Because the latter has ****-for-all for evidence.

It's not a fact that God exists, that is an opinion. Nothing wrong with opinions. When you meet a "beautiful" woman, maybe you will throw your life upside down to marry her. Opinions are that powerful.

The logic of subjectivity says the conclusion the woman is ugly is equally valid to the conclusion the woman is beautiful. That's how subjectivity works, you choose the conclusion, expressing your emotions with free will. Choose it deep from within your heart, in a very sophisticated way. Very sophisticated but all it ends up doing is the simple task of making a possibility which is in the future, the present or not.

Religion is focused on faith, which is a form of opinion, you are to believe in God, and not denote the "fact" God exists.

Evolutionists don't do subjectivity, they have no emotional life.

No, for you everything that exists is a matter of fact.

So when you say "the woman is beautiful", then you are making a statement of fact about a love for the way the woman looks existing in your brain. So for you opinion = fact which means opinion is replaced with fact.

For somebody who does subjectivity the existence of the love for the way the woman looks is a matter of opinion.

Well que in the begining there was light. So in the begining god (nonlocality) made light or c as a deferential from nonlocality himself. So c is an illusion of nonlocality . Timespace being caused by c from nonlocality. Mirrors are stationary to c in moving ref frames. Movment is an illusion of the mover nonlocality. God and relativity are the exact same thing.

but as I said, relativity is wrong from a-z

I am sure you would agree though that relativity involves more than objects and c the speed of light. God is the relativity between observers love is relativity. Adam and eve is man and woman in relativity. God is every kind of relativity and that includes the good samarition story in which god as relativity in the event crossed over the road for a nonlocal reason.

well, now you have to define relativity

Love is agency of a decision, and therefore the existence of it is a matter of opinion. Which means to say it is equally valid to say that love does exist as it is to say it doesn't, just as it is equally valid to say the painting is beautiful or the painting is ugly.

And "relating" is a form of deciding as one. In marriage the souls unite. The souls to the job of choosing, so to be united as one, means to choose as a unity.

duh??

It is the way subjectivity, opinions, work, in common discourse. It has a logic of freedom.

Objectivity, facts, have a logic of being forced.

With facts you are forced to the conclusion by evidence. With opinions you choose the conclusion, expressing your emotions with free will.

You are just one more who is confused about the fundamental difference between facts and opinions. That is because evolutionists have made it look like only facts are valid. Not so, opinions are also valid, but they apply to different domains. Facts apply to the way decisions have turned out, and opinion applies to the agency of a decision.

of course not! take some lessons in the psychology of perception.

a lot is in the mind's eye.

On the painting there are 4 sheep and 2 cows in the meadow. Evidence forces to a conclusion. Whether the painting is beautiful is a matter of opinion. That conclusion is arrived at by expressing emotions with free wil, thus choosing the conclusion.

This has to top the list of the most retarded things anyone has ever said.

Opinions are not facts. There is NO fact that because you love the way something looks it all of a sudden becomes a fact. You have no idea what a fact is.

It seems you want to merge opinions and facts together as if they are completely interchangeable. They are not. Just because you have an opinion on something, it doesn't mean it is a fact, even if you believe it to be true.

Just absurd to suggest opinions to be facts. LOL how stupid do you think we are? How can we take you serious?