Why do people deny evolution?

Leadfoot asks:
It's not "assuming the worst". it's looking at what we have actually done and are doing every day, and noticing what a piss-poor, destructive, non-sustainable job of "dominion"" we are actually doing

My response was NOT about evidence that is not empirical. The discussion point from you was about how theism has lots of evidence like evolution. Which would mean EMPIRICAL evidence.

My response was that it didn't; that the evidence for God was all negation from other things, which you so happily agreed here:



This is not 'empirical ' evidence for God. It is simply what I stated before: that the universe could not happen from chance.

This is evidence from REASON, quite a bit different than empirical evidence.

So either you are being disingenuous as to the original discussion point, or you forgot it..

btw, this doesn't mean that you aren't correct in using your reason to infer a God. That is not what I'm arguing about. You're welcome to it and could be correct. However, your reasoning that there is evidence for God in the same way as evidence for evolution is incorrect. Every claim you make is simply a negation of what you presume is an incorrect assessment of a claim made from a scientific study..

This entropy argument is nonsense, part of the reason is that there is only a correspondence when between entropy and disorder. In fact it appears sometimes entropy will lead to order.

Also, this law applies to closed systems, clearly the earth is not since we have a very large hot stone constantly infusing energy into it. It is true that on the whole, a system will eventually deteriorate, that is the war being lost, but there will be many battles won on the way.

Again, this isn't to say you are wrong, just that your assessment from our current knowledge of physics isn't a show stopper from evolution. This 2nd law stuff is old, consistently handed down from religious generation to generation, often to people with absolutely no background in physics to understand what they are talking about..see here-->

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

btw, I would respect your primary evidence of God coming from some feelings deep within or some idea that God communicates with us through revelation via some divine Fiber Optic cable. I cannot argue against that except that maybe its really the spaghetti you just ate. Seriously, because its not empirically based, there's nothing really to argue. If you feel God exists, well, ok, then..what I am really to say?

Then you are merely ignorant of the meaning of dominion. Thats ok. larning never stops.
The term domination wouldnt necessrily mean that you consciously favor pollution and environmental pillage, its just that you arent against it.

Id even give the Bible some sense in that it periodically talks of the "good and just kings"
I assume it means the same for the environment. Weve been shitty stewards for centuries , so much so that even many Fundamentalist Christian Sects have abandoned their skewed definition of 'Dominion over"... Many now preach about a stewardship and a" sustainable development" of resources.
"Tree Hugging" is a term used by the PEabody Coal co and IP to try to cast a negative light on sustainable development . Theyre losing .

I dont know about Izzy but Ive made a very good living cleaning up mining wastes and developing rare earth and Titanium dioxide prospects so that they are truly sustainable and DONT poison the environment and public health.

ALL these requirements to cleanly develop or to obey "regulations" that your kind seems to tout as bringing about the end of economy, has created a whole new series of industries, Fewer and fewer companies try "to get away with poisoning their wells" and they seem to do their business quite profitably.

Ive made a darned good living and have managed to change the minds of several of my formerly "wild west developer" clients.
In some cases, by actually being environmentally sensitive, theyve been able to develop titanium ores down to several lower prcentages ,(same thing with iron ore of the MEsabi), Weve been able to recover gold and platinum out of their waste streams while cleaning thweir water to a higher lwevel (the water treatment has actually MADE them money.

Dominion means more of a san and just oversight and authority.

"The smart ones today are the tree huggers"

Ask George ob, hes made a similarly good living clleaning up and designinh air treatment facilities for big industries tailpipes.


I dont wanna preach to your bigotry and try to convince you of your wrong headedness, Ill just make this one statement that (in this area re: "tree hugging) you have absolutely no clue of what you speak

May I also add that the principle of the successful redirection of resource management and usage is true in general. That money could be made with 'the other stuff' has been known a long time, but avoided due to conscious actions of interested actors..

The principle also applies in terms of where the US decided to allocate its money resources viz a viz the taxes we pay. The government doles money out to various private interests who benefit from that 'charity'. Those private interests currently happen to be companies that use that 'charity' (mostly in the form of tax breaks, but also from gov't contracts) to develop their goods and services without tax payer recompense from the use of those tax dollars. IBM is a big one. There's many others that use these monies for R&D, essentially free money for them..

Where I see consonance with what you are talking about is that the gov't could have allocated that tax payer money to private industry to be used for social benefit. Apparently a conscious decision was made not to do so. Or at least the decision to with hold an amount that would make for more than a token attempt at helping out the poor, schools etc. Its a shame because although these issues can probably never be totally solved (i for one am not looking for perfection), there's so much room to do so much better than we do..

I think these things are well understood by the people that have interests in them, there's just a large section of them, for whatever reasons, that don't want to go in that direction. I think they are afraid of the loss of power that would come with making things better for others.

btw, I'm glad that you have been able to convince some to change their views, there's just some real recalcitrant sum beyatches out there who don't want anything to do with having a proper future beyond their own..

Assume the worst? You're the one hectoring environmentalists (tree huggers) for wanting to protect the environment.

And you're sucking up to Romeo Fabulini, one of the most despicable bigots on A2K.

Yes, assuming the worst. Where the hell do you, farmer, et al, get the idea that I'm in favor of dispoiling the environment? Your assumption does reveal your prejudice though. My guess is that I have done far more in my personal life to be environmentally sensitive than any of you who have slammed me on a2k.

I do most of my travel on motorcycles which get an average of 46 mpg. I personally installed solar power systems on both my residences and generate more kWh than I use (and I don't get reimbursed by my power company coop or any government rebates). I'm guessing my carbon footprint is far less than average. I am energy use conscious in the extream just due to my engineer mentality that hates waste in any form.

In short, you and the rest characterizing me as an earth distroying maniac is pure bull ****.

I'll give you an example of what I mean by tree hugger.

On one of my ATV trail rides recently I encountered a woman who was the only other human in the several hundred square mile Trickle Mountain wildlife habitat area. ( I always stay on designated roads/trails btw). This woman was there in her mega-motorhome camped a couple of hundred yards off the trail I saw her running toward me waving her arms and thought she might need help or something so I stopped. When she got to me the look of pure hate on her face told me that I should not have stopped. She immediately started screaming that I was going too fast and to slow down, I might hit a cow. ranchers do sometimes graze cows there but they had all been trucked out for the winter already.

I told her I'd be careful not to hit any cows but she went on to say I might hit another ATV (never saw another that day). Told her I'd watch for them too. Then she screamed 'what about the dust! You're stirring up dust!' . With that I thanked her for the advice and left. Quickly.

That is a tree hugger. I have no use for that kind of miserable, fun killing, man hating excuse for a human.

And I have no idea who the **** Romeo Fabulini is, much less sucked up to him or her. Again, your bigotry is showing.

I've lost track of what this loooong thread has evolved into, but if it's about the environment I can point out for the record that the bible is very eco-friendly-
"The whole earth is at peace, the trees rejoice at no woodcutter coming" (Isaiah 14:7/8)

I believe you can find anything you wish in the Bible, even a decent recipe for a martini. (I made up the martini thing, but maybe a bacon lettuce and tomater sammich)

Youseem to have mounted that position. eg, anybody not believing as you is a "tree hugger"
. I think youve caught you ownself in a prevarication there bubba. Your usual trick is to slowly back off your silly positions by gradually changing our understanding of what you originally said.

You realize that "off grid" solr units are limited in power diont you??

I have an on grid unit at a place we own in Delaware and BY LAW, you lose all power if the grid goes down. This is a safety requirement so that linemen dont get electrocuted by all these solar units dripping into the line.For this one We have a backup 16 KW gas gennie.

Solar aint as sensical as it says it is.

I have a cabin and rv site near Eastport Maine where I use "off grid solar" to charge things and provide 24 V (LED)lights and radio nd sparkies for water heating and kicking on gas water-pumps. I would have a 200 gal tank of propane filled by Dead River propane which would supply about 21/2 months of heat from summer to fall .
(Like sept through Halloween).
"carbon footprints on solar units are bigger than you know. Fusing and processing of silica is an energy intensive operation and the Chinese burn anything from peat to polecats in their factories. (ALL youve done is move the footyprint away from you).

plant 25 A of linden trees for every 5KWh you consume (Thats a calc done by some dudes at Cornell and updated by Longwood Inc)

Give A quote from me proving your point or STFU with unsubstantiated BS.

Yeah, yeah, and wind turbines are noisy and kill birds, nuclear makes waste, hydro power dams stop fish from spawning, blah, blah, bla...

Tree huggers are never happy...

you want the Cornell report ?? Or are you denying that you tried casting everyone who didnt believe your interpretation of "Dominion" as Tree huggers. I dont need to provide you a link to your own post there , do I?


HMMMM, I hear cognex works against EOA.
Ill not STFU just because you get so nicely frustrated whenever folks dont buy your brand of malarkey .

I just came bck from a mjor client meeting in the metallurgical coal fields in W Va. Talk about "Dominion" weve basically got a hqlf of a state where coal mining has poisoned almost every mile of crick and the coal companies go out of business to void restoration, so the "Regultions" that all you chaos markets types despise, are the only thing thats keeping little kids from suffering leukemia from all the Arsenic in water supplies tainted by acid mine drainage.

Even China leads the US in cleanups and mine restortion. We seem to operate on this old fashioned religion of rape and run.

STILL!!!

As Ive said in the past and have NOT been severely challenged that

"If it were not for specific environmental regultions, NOTHING REMEDIAL OR SUSTAINABLE WOULD BE DONE BY INDUSTRIES"

We seem to be one of only two species who prefer to live in their own sewage and solid waste piles

I rest my point.

Youre more of an"Old time religionist" than that which I previously
gave you credit. PS, when youre dickin around out in John Denverland, go visit Cripple Creeks and smell the cyanide lwaking into the creeks and in Can'on City, seek out the tritium streams dumping into the ARkansas River. yessah, Thats Dominion over every living thing.
Quick, theres a rainbow trout, lets kill it!

Here is the entire text from that post. It's mostly irrelevant trivia from you, not me. Show me how MY words in that post prove anything you've said about me. For clarity here are my words again :

"(and I don't get reimbursed by my power company coop or any government rebates)."

Because what you said is kinda BS. Im sure you aint AMISH, even though oure using a non grid solar unit. They dont pay you for sell back because you aint hooked to the grid. If you ARE(using a grid system), then, whether you want it or not, you are reimbursed in some fashion.

Interesting dialogue. There are many quite unnecessary controversies afoot here, most resulting from degrees of certainty on both sides of these arguments that are quite unwarranted by reason.

Evolution was properly considered a theory when Darwin first proposed it in the mid 19th century. Since then our knowledge and observations of it in the biological and fossil records have grown appreciably making if more an observable fact than a theory.

Whether life "evolved" from a chemical soup or not, has not yet been demonstrated. However, the answer, whatever it may be has nothing to do with the question of a creator of our universe. Either way the universe could have a creator or not.

Current cosmological theory suggests our universe is finite in both space and time. It had a beginning, and current theory suggests it will have an end. although that understanding of it may change.

The domain of science is the domain of objectively verifiable hypotheses. The question of the origin of the universe is outside the domain of science. That means there can be no contest between science and any of philosophy on the question of the origin of the universe. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator.

Whether man has "dominion " over the earth is a spiritual or philosophical question that depends on what extra scientific belifs one holds. One who holds the belief that mankind is the work of a creator will likely place man at the top in his ranking of ethical values. Even in this case I believe right thinking would lead one to conclude that men have some level of responsibility for protecting the environment, if for nothing else than the good of mankind. Is this situation much different for one who holds an opposing view of creation? I don't think so. Even for an atheist we have some level of ethical responsibility both towards each other and to the physical environment that sustains us.

I believe that most of the arguments in this area result from the zealotry of those who make a quasi religion out of (usually sappy) concepts of sustainability, and most of these arguments are a lot of sound and fury about very little, particularly among those folks who thoughtlessly restrict the domain in which they evaluate these things. Life goes on and human knowledge, science and our technological capabilities grow over time. Solutions take time and not everything needed can or must be done now.

For example, with respect to the use of fossil fuels today, most people forget that several decades from now many things will likely be possible that can't be done now. In four or five decades we will likely have solar cells that mimic photosynthesis and produce free hydrogen - a fuel that can power all conventional engines with a waste gas of water vapor, while solving the current bane of wind & solar "renewable power", that of energy storage. In addition we're likely to have safer nuclear fission reactors and to have figured out how to dump the high level waste into subsidence zones (like the Marianas Trench) where it will spend an eon or so in the liquid mantle, reemerging as lead. With that in mind the "life or death" controversy over energy production becomes a more manageable one of protecting human welfare with a mix of available energy sources, including fossil fuels until we get there. Only very small minds see curent renewable sourses and rationing as a permanent solution. Such folks indeed are the doctrinal Calvinist zealots of the current era, and we all know what happened to the originals.

Mine wastes are a particularly disagreeable, and in many cases unnecessary, byproduct of the industrial age. From piles of tailings to acid drainage and the contamination of streams - and all it entails a lot of harm has been done by an extraction industry too bent on extracting what is needed and then moving on to another location. Minerals are easily and relatively cheaply shipped over long distances. so the cheapest (and perhaps least ethical) producer sets the economic norms for the market. A tough problem to manage, but we are getting closer to doing so.

You speak with great 'authority' about me and my situation without any knowledge of either, hence your arguments are specious, both about technical matters and my treatment of the environment.

First off, I have one of each - grid tied (Florida) and off grid (CO).

Second, I get no reimbursement for the excess kWh in FL because the state government exempted electric coops from net metering. They installed a meter which is programmed NOT to 'run backwards' when I am making more than I use. The only economic benefit I get is from the solar power I use in real time.