132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
parados
 
  4  
Thu 12 Nov, 2015 09:18 am
@Quehoniaomath,
The dictionary definition is not the scientific theory. More word games from you. You are definitely a disingenuous a-hole.
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Thu 12 Nov, 2015 10:28 am
@parados,
Quote:
The dictionary definition is not the scientific theory. More word games from you. You are definitely a disingenuous a-hole.


O ic , of course ending with an ad hominem. very cheap.

So, I aks for a definition. I get one and criticise it, then suddenly the definition is not a scientific theory!

Just shifting all the time, aren't you?

make up your mind, mate!
parados
 
  2  
Thu 12 Nov, 2015 10:50 am
@Quehoniaomath,
You changed the definition you were given in order to criticize it. I notice you didn't address the specific point I raised in how you were disingenuous about the definition you were given. My conclusion about your argument seems to be correct. You are disingenuous in your arguments making you a disingenuous a-hole. When you make a large mistake and it is pointed out you just ignore it and pretend there has been no argument.

That doesn't make my calling you a disingenuous a-hole an ad hominem since I still haven't said you are wrong because you are a disingenuous a-hole. The fact that I point out your errors and you pretend they don't exist makes you a disingenuous a-hole.

gungasnake
 
  0  
Thu 12 Nov, 2015 12:59 pm
https://youtu.be/KN7NwKYUXOs?list=PL7Wwl5TzliiH1DLO0_c7CpT5ekfDxTnS5

hingehead
 
  6  
Thu 12 Nov, 2015 01:25 pm
@parados,
Moral support....

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCMiKt5UkAEeDta.png
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Thu 12 Nov, 2015 03:43 pm
@gungasnake,
Yeah, right, we all come feom Adam and Eve. And the whole universe is 6000 years old. Jeez, Ogunga, you're gullible. And are the Mormons rigjt too:-) Was the Gardn of Eden relly ehere that Paradise on Earth taday, St. Joseph, Missouri stands, not far from Ferguson? The neighborhood has sure gone downhill.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Thu 12 Nov, 2015 04:21 pm
@hingehead,
Quote:
Moral support....


Does he need that?

Telling!
0 Replies
 
Briancrc
 
  2  
Thu 12 Nov, 2015 07:25 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
Well, that is still 20%!!


20% of what number?

Then look at the total number of biologists there are to see just how unimpressive your little factoid is.
farmerman
 
  2  
Thu 12 Nov, 2015 07:56 pm
@Briancrc,
actually, the total amount of all these scientists who signed the "dissent from Darwin"[petition[ that was circulated by the Discovery Institute in 2007] was over 750 " friendly scientists of all kind"

YET , this number constitutes less than 0.025PERCENT of all BIOLOGISTS ( does not include chemists or physicists or geologists etc)

All of these scientissts are first and foremost , WORLDVIEW DRIVEN, not evidence and fact and experimentally driven.

Using numbers of supporters is a poll, polls are opinions only and the religiously driven folks obviously chose their religions over their training


Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Fri 13 Nov, 2015 12:47 am
@Briancrc,
Quote:
20% of what number?

Then look at the total number of biologists there are to see just how unimpressive your little factoid is.


it isn't important if it is an unimpressive number or not.
But it is important to see that there are profs of biology who are very
skeptic of the nonsense called evolution.


And, as I have written before, and you haven't understood or not read, the numbers by itself don't prove a trhing. They only prove some profs of biology are very skeptic.

Especially since some people think that every prof supports the evolution bullocks.
Well, now you have seen, it ain't so.



So, why the critic on the numbers? want to proof something, mate?


Because so far, you have down a lousy job and your 'logic' is flawed.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Fri 13 Nov, 2015 12:56 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
All of these scientissts are first and foremost , WORLDVIEW DRIVEN, not evidence and fact and experimentally driven.


But you don't know that!
Really, how do you know? Or is it your belief system that is thinking this?
Because you have to deeply invested in this stupid religion.

Quote:
Using numbers of supporters is a poll, polls are opinions only and the religiously driven folks obviously chose their religions over their training


As I have written above, I do agree they do not mean or prove a thing.
except that they show some profs are indeed very skeptical.
Nothing more, nothing less.
But you now have to prove that they 'chose their religion over their training"
Of course you are only asuming that and have not given any proof or evidence otf that. It is in reality your black/white thinking.
Everyone who doesn't believe in your evolution religion cligns to another religion. Right? You can't phantom that there are people who see the religion of evolution for what it is, and have no religious agenda.
For starters, I have none. I ONLY look at the evidence, or better, lack of evidence.
I might as well state that you write that because of your religious belief in the evolution religion.

So, all the conclusions you arrived at are not valid of course.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Fri 13 Nov, 2015 01:18 am
@parados,
Quote:
You changed the definition you were given in order to criticize it. I notice you didn't address the specific point I raised in how you were disingenuous about the definition you were given. My conclusion about your argument seems to be correct. You are disingenuous in your arguments making you a disingenuous a-hole. When you make a large mistake and it is pointed out you just ignore it and pretend there has been no argument.

That doesn't make my calling you a disingenuous a-hole an ad hominem since I still haven't said you are wrong because you are a disingenuous a-hole. The fact that I point out your errors and you pretend they don't exist makes you a disingenuous a-hole.


ONLY ad hominems from this one! How cheap, how cheap
At not very creative at that! Considering it is the same one over and over.

But it seems something is bothering you.

You probably ca't stand critics of the extremely stupid evolution religion, right?
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Fri 13 Nov, 2015 01:19 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Now about all those evidnces for macro evolution that you are STILL trying to pretend don't exist.......

Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Fri 13 Nov, 2015 01:24 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Now about all those evidnces for macro evolution that you are STILL trying to pretend don't exist.......


I am not pretending at al.
Really there is none. Except when you believe all this crap,
That your imagination shows it to you everywhere and all over the place!

And, again, I did adress one issue. The hoax of Haegel! The embryo nonsense.
Of course you don't dare to adress that.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Fri 13 Nov, 2015 01:49 am
Quote:
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Fri 13 Nov, 2015 01:50 am
Quote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Fri 13 Nov, 2015 01:53 am
Quote:
"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. [i]If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them[/i]...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Fri 13 Nov, 2015 01:54 am
Quote:
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Fri 13 Nov, 2015 02:16 am
"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Fri 13 Nov, 2015 02:57 am
Quote:
"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 06/20/2024 at 07:21:21