Why do people deny evolution?

I like your answer about the "from ape to human scenario, saying we did not come from apes, but share a common ancestor. I am aware of the common ancestor story, but what startled me about this ape to human scenario was watching the DNA Journey of Man documentary on youtube by Dr Spencer Wells. About quarter of the way through this doc he says we evolved from apes before migrating out of Africa. I thought, what a strange thing to say for a geneticist with a good story on the Out of Africa theory. No wonder people get put off by the human evolution story. I think we're unique and evolved independently from apes(not excluding the common ancestor of course) You know looking at our hands that can grasp tree branches gives us away alright. But i was thinking when our ancestors hadn't invented spears or competent weapons to be able to roam freely on the ground, you could imagine if all those verocious carnivores were on the prowl and saw you, you'd be up that tree pretty fast alright. It seems unimaginable about the harsh environment our ancestors must have went through to survive, amazing.

What's telling, and after all these years, tedious, is that people still, apparently, don't know what theory means in science. They act as though it is synonymous with guess.

We're not, we survived, but there were lots of other hominids who didn't.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#sediba

Im glad to see talk origins is still updating their factual information. They had me worried that they too would become some sappy "anti Creationist" blog, but theyve only responded to the IDers and Creationists, they havent gotten hysterical like Ken Ham or all the other anti-science moroni.

Now that gungasnake is busy fellating Vladimir Putin on the web, we dont get his better crafted anti science clips from the ICR. The ICR always had really slick production values and their Creation "science" garbage could actually be entertaining .

I have noticed 4 reasons why people deny evolution so far. 1. They believe or want to believe a magical god instantly materialized everything into existence. 2. They are not yet satisfied with all current evidence presented. 3. They get put off by evolution commentary such as "you came from apes". 4. They are rebellious against the scientific community because they percieve negative or undesirable aspects in scientific presentations.

In my experience, there's a lot of willful ignorance going around.

People don't want to know what's really in the Kimchi.

Ignorance based on logic or emotions?

I can't make a sweeping generalization with much confidence, but judging from the things people I've discussed it with say, fear is at the very bottom of it. Whatever illogic they apply seems to be post hoc rationalizations.

Trust me, it's better that way...

You are sure you are not in a very deep slaap?

Evolution is coincidence in action that brings change to lifeforms.God is the action and is also the coincidence in that action . Simultaniety and the presenter or changer are one in the same.

I see a pattern in your ideas. You equate God, love, soul and things like that, to objectively measurable things. You mistake the creation for the creator.

One can only arrive a the identiy of who or what makes a decision turn out the way it does, by choosing the answer.

You are just like atheists in that you don't understand this procedure of reaching a conclusion about what is real, by choosing the answer.

There is also another procedure, being forced by evidence to a model of what is evidenced resulting in a fact. That is also valid, but it only applies to the creation, not to the creator.

You cannot measure or make a model of love, you can only express your emotions to say what it is, and in expressing you choose.

Syam its the knower of what you a saying which is the you that dose not move. And that thing which you are part and parcel of is the mover and changer and coincedents of all evolving things. Gods hand can be seen as the coincedents in the arrangments of nature that cause change in forms. All things are god in action. So god is the relativity in the coincedents of action. Example our planet moving round the sun.

http://canadianpatriot.org/archives/42

Its the nonradom nature of Dna that pionts to the designer.

The designer is nonlocality or put another way relativity. The relativity in the co incidents that produced the physics of Dna is the designer of Dna. Hope that all makes sense.

What you say is wrong in the sense that it denies the regular straightforward knowledge we have about how choosing works that we use in daily life, law, government, religion and such.

You need to find out what you are actually saying is true in daily life when you talk in terms of choosing.

For example in the structure everybody uses when talking in terms of choosing, there are alternatives in the future one of which is made the present, or there is a possibility in the future which is made the present or not.

You should regard that as a scientific hypothesis. That this future objects have would actually be measurable mathematically. That it is actually added to the object in the present in what is called a decision.

When what you say intellectually is in contradiction with what you say is true in daily life, then one of them at least must be bullshit.

     You are not making any discussion and never have your own opinion.
     You have some broken records wound on your finger and some stochastic quotes from other fellow-clowns on the TV ... and nothing else. Why are you trying to disorient the people that you are making any science and any scientific discussion?