Why do people deny evolution?

The probability in a co incidents is god. Probability is relativity inside the statistics of a co incidents.

huh?

The Discovery Institute? Give me a break. They have no interest in doing any form of scientific research. All you have to do is read their mission statement to know that they are just a shill for religion (of their own particular flavor). Pitiful. I thought you were going to be different from the others we've seen before, but if you can't see through those idiots then you can't see through anything.

Can you give an example from Discovery Institute's publications of their idiocy or is all you can do is name call?

Yes probability is guided by the relativity in the co incidents. A simple example is the earth orbiting the sun. The co incidents of the two objects the earth and the sun is guided by there relativity in spacetime as gravity.

God must also be the relativity in the co incidents of scale.

And still...after all these years......no evidence at all!


How come?

Because there is no evidence in the relativity its self it just exist as a neutral no thing . And that is what consciousness is it is nothing as nonhappening existance.

As I said before, you can read their own mission statement and see that the Discovery Institute is not a science organization. Their mission is to change the rules of science to allow the answers they want, not the other way around. And that's the very antithesis of science. Much like a camel trying overturn a tent they want to get their nose under the foundation and worm their way in so that they can corrupt it. And they do this even while pretending to be a scientific organization. Hypocritical on top of everything else. It's hard to know where to begin with this clown car of an institute.

These are the same geniuses who backed the ID argument in the Dover trial and not only failed in spectacular fashion but exposed their position to ridicule and gave the judge the rare opportunity to use the phrase "breathtaking inanity" in a ruling (probably one of the highlights of his career). They stuck their nose under his tent and he not only swatted it away, he poured gasoline on it, lit it on fire, send them whimpering back into the shadows and then posted signs out front saying, "Beware of the Flaming Camel".

So please go back to using them to support your arguments and telling me that I'm just name calling, I need another good laugh for the day.

I noticed you could quote the judge in the Dover trial but not anything by the Discovery Institute. So until you give me something to work with, you're just making ad hominem attacks and name calling.

Have you actually read anything by them? Meyers "Signature in The Cell" is all scientifically based. I don't think the word 'God' is used a single time unless in the context of saying what the book was not about.

Have you actually provided any concrete evidence for your particular god? Something that points to the necessity of that conclusion?

Wrong thread for that but I have already said in a number of ways that there is probably no concrete evidence that you would accept. I don't even think God wanted there to be such evidence. I think he went to considerable lengths to cover up that evidence. Other than 'us' that is. The thing that makes theists and atheists unable to resist these discussions is probably the best evidence available.

I see you are going to fall back on the "It's not GOD but just some mythical being that is outside the natural world that controls that natural world but we aren't going to call him GOD for the sake of this argument. So don't even think I mean GOD." While you might think it is a great argument, no one else is fooled by it.

God didn't want there to be evidence. That is why when you said the book of Genesis in the Bible doesn't contradict science I found several examples that did contradict science.

I guess God just wanted you to be fooled by him when he wrote that book.

In what way are we credible evidence for a god?



What "thing" is that and how is it credible evidence for your god?

You're put'n me on, right?

The "thing" is what makes you unable to resist these 'pointless' conversations with 'delusional' people who claim there is a God. Why else would you be here?

Is there another noun for this instead of "thing"?

I actually don't have a word for it. Just the way you were made?

If you're trying to establish some sort of credible evidence for your god, you'll need to be more specific than that, I'm afraid. Evolution has a pretty thorough explanation for "the way we are made," and I don't see any signs pointing towards the god hypothesis therein.

Fbm your belief in buddhism is contradiction to your atheism. Buddhist do they not believe in reincarnation. For there to be reincarnation there has to be eternal life. If there is eternal life that life that is eternal has to be a part of god. Are you or are you not a buddhist or believe in budhism. Please come of the fence for once.