Why do people deny evolution?

Too bad there aren't more of them on this thread.

You 'math skills' are showing BTW...

Why don't you explain why Intelligent Design is scientific?

If someone gets put on anti depressants and those particular anti depressants don't work, the doctor doesn't perform an exorcism. That's what you're like with evolution, just because evolution isn't 100% doesn't mean the answer is found in religious tomes.

Science is based on observation and experiment, not religious ideology.

Believe what you want but don't kid yourself you're being objective. As Fil has pointed out, this side of the pond most people accept evolution as fact, including the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Only fanatics think otherwise.

nd once again, I appeal to your ignorance of history about the Discovery Intitute. Axe is thir director of Bio "studies" (so far unpublished except for in house stuff).
Axe was a partner in composing the WEDGE DOCUMENT of the original DI, which called for the "renewal of society by Christian faith and morels"

It published numbers of rules to be followed, most all were religious. AND FURTHER

The entire discovery institute was an outgrowth of the Edwards v Aguillard Supreme court case that was based on teaching biblical creation as scientific FACT in Louisiana Public Schools.
You may say that Axe aint peddling religion and I say that its just because youve not been brought up to speed about the spider web associated with these BS movements in the US and where they wish to go.

KEN MILLER, on the other hand, is a devout Catholic and he practices his religion and leaves it on the doorstep when he goes into his labs to do evolution research.His God is transcendant , not imminent

Be careful of what you try to invoke. Most of the people here are savvy nough to recognize BS when its spouted by people who say that they are appealing to "Science, not religion".

Oh **** me, never mind 2 + 2 does = 1.5 million and I'm just a religious nut

You are right about this. SCience is daily trying to punch holes in almost everything it discovers. Its very competitive, (mny say because its so irrelevant).
As I spoke about Maggie Dayhoff and how much she has said she owed to naturl selection of the many amino acids and proteins that act as point accepted mutations, and how this has led to so many medicinal discoveries just by simple (x,Y) expansions (like a map distance to cities chart).
Can you name ANYTHING the IDers or Creationists have added???? (besides how to say,OOOPS!!!)

You're off by a couple orders of magnitude once again

Next to the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury you are.

too many zeros. ) 0.05 % o 320 million is , uuuuuh, less say about 1.5 millionen K?

cmon, youre evading the issue by claiming that Axe (qnd by extension, you) are NOT basing most of your positions on
1religious views and
2(you) a deep ignorance of the history of ID ism. If ya wanna be part of something, you oughta learn its TOS's



PS, and I meant FAITH AND MORALS , not faith and morels. (somebody PMed me)

Yeah, I know the cliché about history and that's all it is, an empty cliché.

As for me on this issue, **** history, I'm looking at now. If you are locked into the past (and I think you are), ain't nothing I can do about that.
I'm move'n on

we use history so we dont repeat the mistakes. I really G.A.S. whether youre moving on or not, just dont be repeating that religion is not at the base of your comments when you damn well know they are. If you ignore Mr Axe, do it with people who dont know the history of his, and your your position.
your comments re Mr Axe are like comparing SCience to SCientology.

and in case you didnt get it the first time


Youd better learn what hes about when you claim that his statements are non-religious based. See, youve just discovered him. Hes been a spokesprson for them since 1999

You're wasting your time. People of religion are not going to let science change their idea on creation (ID). All my siblings are Christians, so I know.
It's so simple for me: Bible claims our planet is 7000 years old. Scientists tell us this planet is 4.5 billion years old. No contest.
How would people 2000 years ago have the wherewithal to have the tools or knowledge we have today. Their belief system was based on mythology.

I dont believe Leadfoot is a fundamentalist. He just tries to have it too many ways

Not really, your position is fundamentalist, just like that of the nutcases who landed on Plymouth Rock fleeing religious tolerance. You're the one tied in the past. The Bible was written by a preindustrial people who had little idea of how things worked.

Your fundamentalism is such that to reject part of this book is to reject it in its entirety. Non fundamentalist Christians are not so encumbered, they can look at the Bible with a rational mind which, is why both the Pope and the archbishop of Canterbury accept evolution. It's because they want Christianity to be taken seriously. You don't seem to want that.

Btw, the only bit of the Bible that matters is Love thy neighbour, the rest is just padding.

I'm an American and gave you a thumb's up. When the voters elected Trump, I knew for sure how ignorant Americans really are. They elected a textbook racial bigot, scammer and misogynist as our president. That was common knowledge before the election.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/opinion/donald-trumps-bigotry.html?_r=0

I disagree. re: Leadfoot. Hes not a "Genesis literalist" and he knows and accepts the math and chemistry behind the Age o the EARTH. Hes more convinced that "design" is "obvious".

I always wonder why the Creationists do not use more esoteric knowledge regarding their denial of evolution. Like, why does the Dmanisi skull give science some real problems in paleoanthropology, yet they just give us a pass.

Because you keep referring to anyone who questions evolution as taught as the pejorative 'Creationists'.

But at least you brought up an actual debatable subject mixed in.

As I said before, 'Evolution' as taught from the fossil record is just a 'narrative' that tries to fit the theory to the evidence.

Just as an example related to this particular find, and fossils in general, it often ignores the range of very ordinary, and extraordinary, variation in species as well as the widely scattered location and extreme incompleteness of the finds and calls it evidence of evolution.

I'm stretching the point a little for illustration but for example, in terms of atypical skull features, my GF is just as strange as this assumed 'Homo erectus', not to mention her full grown height being almost a foot shorter than the assumed height of this one. Her skull is so small that we had a hard time finding a racing helmet that her head didn't rattle around in. (she's whip smart too)

I wonder what some future paleoanthropologist would make of her bones when they carbon date them. I can imagine the headlines now - "New fossil find puts Homo Erectus alive into the 2000s!" or some such nonsense.



We 'Creationists' don't give you a pass, we just know you won't pay any attention to the argument presented.

I was always a "lumper". Creating a species name for every new fossil find is silly when we have examples of sexual dimorphism in birds, mammals, and insects and even polymorphism in insects and fish. Perhaps the Damnisi fossils will show that erectus was the core species and(possibly the only) species that spawned sapiens and neanderthalensis. Most scientists in research want to be associted with a "very important discovery" so paleoanthropology is one of those areas that wvery new fossil is a very important find.

Youve got me dead wrong about labelling critics of evolution as Creationists. I label Creationists as Creationists when Ive got clear evidence thats what they are. When you say that Axe has no religious basis for his claims, I say that you are woefully unknowing of the mans history . He was around as a "Scientific Creationist" just before the ID movement split off from those guys when they lost in te SUpreme Court case (Aguillard v Edwards). He was an author of the "Wedge Document" (Which youve gotta read if you call yourself an IDer).

Thats totally untrue because Ive just given you the point of argument and have herd NOTHING from gunga, other "doubters" and you. I just assumed that you guys knew nothing about that skull grouping. I got a wee tired waiting for gungas 1940 knoqledge to catch up. Hes still arguing the old fruit fly xperiments when they sliced off genes (because they didnt understqnd Point qnd multi associated mutations)


You are correct with the "derivation of the theory" biut you dont understand that the DATA DEFINES THE THEORY. Evolutionary theory has gone through so many quick rinses and deep divides from the 1950's till now (think about Damnisi). Evidence for evolution is circumstantial, I agree. BUT its in massive amounts of circumstnces. It mounts up almost weekly and yet NO DATA OR EVIDENCE has been found that refutes it.
Science of chem, geology, paleo, genetics mbryology, and math modelling all agree.

CAN ID/Creationism say that? All I see is a full court press to try to disparage any piece of this evidence . There are so many presumptive conditions necessary for Creationism to work that almost any piece of data needs to be shut down or tried to meld into creationist hypotheses.

The problem with dating skulls or human bones is that e cant date the bones accurately once they are >50000 yrs old (and we dont know ho old they ere until after we get some kind of C14 date)
We have to date old skulls by dating the sediments from which they were extracted. Therefore, Olduvai and the rest of the African rift valley provide us with volcanic ash from which we develop dates from Radio isotope dating of zircon and monazite crystals.

Its all circumstantial but it all constitutes good forensics. It builds lab techniques, clean-up and QA tests, and reinforces rules of radioisotope dating.

On that list of Creationist sites I included in a past post, I included the Earth History Research Center. These guys are associated with a Seventh Dy Adventists University and, even though the U is Fundamentalist, the Earth History Guys hqve been totally honest in their investigatory results. They have set themselves up as "Search for Truth" guys for Creationist believers, and they actually Test stuff about the Flood, Paluxey River human footprints , etc. In all cases, so fr, these guys have found for science qnd have discounted ALL of the Creationist claims to evidence such things as a "young Earth". "Evidence for a Flood" etc. What theyve left themselves with is a Ken Miller type of Christianity where God becomes Transcendent and was the author of Creation (not its" mechanic").

Such a Christianity leaves much room open for actual research and makes guys like Dawkins an Coyne just sound like the snarky smart asses they are.