Why do people deny evolution?

Yes Krumple i am aware of those types of people who call themselves Christians. I do find them a little strange. They call themselves Christians yet they don't follow Christ(Lord Jesus that is) which they should follow only, but they go all over the bible pulling out verses and chapters from other teachers or prophets. I think they should focus only on the words of Lord Jesus, otherwise they end up confused or in un-Christian places. Mind you, i haven't always been clear about Christianity or religion for that matter, but maybe its a gradual or evolving process, like the saying "Perfection is a gradual process, not an instant one" As we get older we start realizing things we never did. Even in the bible Lord Jesus is the ultimate, teacher of all teachers, he is the spirit of god(the father or family). I feel comfortable with him, hes not anti-human or dishonourable, or scared and perverted. I can see past all the fairy tale literature and I see a great teacher of human family values and morals

actually, physics is a kind of religion, with all its dumb high priests like dumb einstein etc.

What do you suppose it means to harden ones heart?

Initially i would use the word "science" (instead of physics) but i know when most people use the word science they are actually meaning physics. But i know the word science doesn't only refer to the topic of physics. It can also refer to natural, food, political and social etc. But i am aware of a science definition that i can't remember where i saw it, may be it was on tv. It stated that if a topic has no way of being tested (for any minimum and maximum outcomes) then it cannot be classed as a scientific subject. Anyway, your implication that physics(or science) is a religion came across as a comic strip, sometimes i get the impression that people who identify as atheists like to think they own the word science, and if you are a theist you are not allowed to use this word, your word is god, hahaha we are more intellectually superior than you theists. Sounds ridiculous? childish? a comic strip maybe

Well they wrote a song about it

Well, it really is the case that 'science' is nothing more then a religion.

Once the religions didn't work as well anymore for control of the masses,
science was invented. It really has nothing to do with looking for truth.

There is a way around science becoming a religion.

First adopt creationism, which divides reality into a spiritual domain, and a material domain, the spiritual domain choosing which way the material domain turns out. That way one can neatly separate opinion from fact, so that science remains all facts.

Second accept pure mathematics ordered by zero, as the theory of everything in creation.
Mathematics is already at the basis of all natural laws, so then the logical next step is to simply declare mathematics the theory of everything. There are many hidden prejudices in concepts such as "particle", for example the particle concept is not very suitable for an information analysis.

With creationism material then has these 2 attributes.
1 in principle it can be represented with mathematics, made a 1 to 1 model of
2 any material that is alternatively can also not be, because it is chosen

With this conceptual scheme one can for instance even describe how imagination works, let alone the physical universe. While with a particle centric scheme, or even an information centric scheme, that is really not very doable.

I was suppose to use the word "religion"not "god"in my last post. I guess the comic strip laugh backfired on me. People on this forum website probably wonder why i take awhile to reply sometimes, but i do have to go to work to pay the bills, family obligations, sleeptime for work etc etc, i mean i can't just sit around all day online with my phone, i wish i could though but reality says i can't. So the time i do ge to be on A2k i will reply. It is a good forum to share info and opinions. I do apologise if anyone read my last post to Samsyu or something like that i remember the name name, i don't like to use offence tones, but i didn't say anything rude or ooffence to that person, he or she did it first. i think that person doesn't like other people to have an opinion of their own wnich is intitled to. I don't claim to be perfect but i do have an opinion.

I know what you are.
You are the universe pretending to be you.
Am I right
You are the unmoving one
Pretending for a while.

I am not talking about that, I am talking about 'science' being a religion from the beginning

Yes i am part of the universe like everyone else, therefore we are the universe, yes i do pretend hilarious characters (not myself though, therefore you're wrong) when i'm joking with friends and family. I don't know what you mean by unmoving it doesn't make sense if your a living being in comparison to a dead being. My own analysis on myself is that i'm like anyone else, i too wish and strive for a well and happy life, no big secrets or mysteries there. However, as a Christian i do think Charles Darwin was a very clever man thinking outside of the square and coming up with his evolution idea, we are living in a universe where everything evolves to fruition. But i do agree that particular evolution assumptions still need to be clarified to a point of no doubt, especially for the doubting Thomas's. I really like the categories on the family orders of the species, a brilliant revealation. I'm not convinced about the ape to human theory though, i think we are unique where our evolution is independent from other primates. The only thing i hate about scientific attitudes is the one where they use belittling terms towards our ancestors, primitive, lack of intelligence, uncivilized etc etc. And you think if it wasn't for them we wouldn't exist. All their hardships, bravery, family support, harsh environments, this type of people are like ungrateful spoilt children with no regard for all the hardships our ancestors endured for the survival of our specie. Very sad very very sad indeed.

For example?? name a few areas

Spend your time reading scripture. Particularly about original sin.

Somebody instinctively comes to form the habit of conceiving of choosing as sorting out the best result, using the facts about good and evil (original sin of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) as sorting criteria. That way every time they have made a decision, then by the definition of choosing that they use, they did the best. The brain releases drugs, the ego get's a boost. The ego boosting becomes the mainstay of their emotional life, or rather lack of an emotional life, they become addicted to the drugs the brain produces, .

And then they start to think how all is this talk about spirit this, and spirit that, is bullshit. Because the spirit doesn't do any choosing, the result of any choice is simply a forced effect of the available data to sort, and the sorting criteria. There is no need for any spirit to do the job of choosing.

What's required for choosing is a brain, to sort out the best result. So it means freedom in the weather, that is bullshit. Freedom in the way the universe turns out, things getting chosen in the universe, that is bullshit. Only in brains are things decided.

And that's how atheism arises. That is why it is unacceptable for scientists or anybody to deny freedom is real, it is just a manifestation of original sin.

A manifestation of intense self-delusion is more likely.

From ape to human idea(my own doubt) , out of Africa dna study(a lot of people doubt it), the big bang idea(lot of people still think its only a theory), from fish to human idea and others i can't think of at the moment(i'm getting ready to go to work, gotta pay the bills) And yes not all these evolutionary ideas are Darwins, but he did set the ball rolling as far as i know at the moment. Most doubters just say, how the heck do they know they weren't around that long ago.

In science a theory is a systematic bunch of organized facts. Your definition is wrong.

I find that most "doubters" dont want to invest any time to learn, so they just make up **** to spew among their true believers.
It used to be that we were entitled to our own conclusions but not our own facts. With news orgas like Fox or the Creation Research Institute, the facts have been so screwed with and the Creationists use the ipse dixitism method of merely quoting each other ad nauseum and that becomes their new facts.

Ive been watching all this crap about doing C14 analyses of dinosaur bones and finding that they are only 20 to 40 K years old. The methods used are so riddled with error and fraud that any 1st year analytical chem student can see how wrong they are.

Did I already do this?

What are your thoughts on the "from ape to human" scenario, do you think our evolution is unique independent from other primates?

just the fact that you ask the 'ape to human' question shows you're not aware of the basics. We share a common ancestor - we did not evolve from them.

Yep, Big Bang is a theory. Would that creationism and religious texts could even qualify for that label because, as you say: