Why do people deny evolution?

I explicitly wrote I am no Creationist, but you want to deny that, because of your extremely black and white thinking. Why do you think that someone who is not in favor of evolotion (I know), is automaticcaly a creationist? To be fair, it smells a little bit as a mental illness. But I might be wrong of course.

It looks like you are proving my point that you have no real reply to legitimate criticism of evolution. You resort immediately to labeling critics religious nuts.

I haven’t seen OG here before but he has said absolutely nothing pro religion and has denied being a Creationist (as in your meaning).

The OP specifically asks why people don’t believe evolution. Plenty of reasons have been offered but you keep asking for evidence of God. That’s not what this is about.

Exactly!

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .

If, as is unconvincingly alleged here, the objection is not based on religious scruple, than why, specifically, does this member deny evolution? That is, in fact, the topic of the thread. Just saying "I don't believe it" is not convincing. How does one explain the diversity of life on the planet, and the evidence of the fossil record, if one rejects biological evolution? This bullshit is not at all convincing.

"If, as is unconvincingly alleged here, the objection is not based on religious scruple, than why, specifically, does this member deny evolution? That is, in fact, the topic of the thread. Just saying "I don't believe it" is not convincing. How does one explain the diversity of life on the planet, and the evidence of the fossil record, if one rejects biological evolution? This bullshit is not at all convincing."

Hm It seems you really don't read my posting. (Maybe bacause of the conflicting ideas, hm?)

Why I say that? Because you mention " than why, specifically, does this member deny evolution?" But I have written why. One of the arguments is that it is a mathematical improbablity! See my postings above where I stated that. But what is the use of posting if you don't read them? That is why your arguments above are not valid.

How would you calculate that, again?

"Welcome OLdGrumpy, I see you have gotten the usual reception from the Neo Darwinians.

Yes, the ad hominem is the standard response when you confront them with their own hypocrisy and contradictions. Enjoyed seeing you make them squirm though..."

Ah thanks! sorry for my late reply Just read this.

Oh well if they throw ad hominems, which yes is of course a sad thing, but it means they are getting powerless, and they know that.

All of science, including evolotion (I know) is getting obsolete. May take a few years but I am rather convinced now that it will.

"How would you calculate that, again?"

Well, you can start here e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slf1HocG9Mk

"I made this video for mathematicians, so I did not explain the calculations, because someone with a strong background in Mathematics would figure it out pretty quickly.

(1/20)^1000 comes from assuming that we already have the 20 amino acids that are found in proteins and that they somehow can link themselves together. Each amino acid in the chain has a (1/20) chance of being right, so a 1000 amino acid chain would have a (1/20)^1000 chance of having the right sequence.

Even if we had 15 billion years (the supposed age of the universe) and we had 10^80 new "lottery tickets" (the number of individual atoms in the universe) every second, then we still do not come close to having enough "lottery tickets". The odds of winning the "Cosmic Lottery" for 1 protein is (1/20)^1000. Even if we double the supposed age of the universe to 30 billion we still do not come close.

Even if we had an obnoxiously small protein of 100 amino acids, it still does not cover the odds of winning the cosmic lottery.

Keep in mind that we would need hundreds of proteins just to have the simplest living cell, as I explain painfully in detail in the video.

Someone commented that there have been experiments that have shown that the building blocks of life could have formed naturally. This is nice, but it does not address the mathematics that I am putting forth here, because video already assumes that those building blocks are there. The argument in this video has to do with the order of the sequence of the building blocks. We can have a bunch of scrabble letters, but that does not mean that they can form a poem on their own if we drop them on the ground. Neither is there any reason to believe that amino acids (or nucleotides, or ribonucleotides for that matter) would ever form themselves into the right sequence to form a protein (or a code for just one protein) to make life possible. Also, like I mentioned in the video, hundreds of proteins would be needed just to form the simplest life forms, and I explain why."

Oh and btw NO creationist anything, just pure math!

There is more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQoQgTqj3pU

Origin Of Life - the probability of making a protein

You mean there's still some question in your mind on this?

I'm thinking Reasoning Logic. He used to post a **** ton of weird conspiracy videos, demand you watch it and give a response.

I don't think they have friends.

conspiracy video's??? show me where!

Me thinks their mathematical skills are a bit rusty.

At first, life made do with short and simple proteins, in the few dozen amino acids, then progressively diversified and complexified.

yep, you don't get the math, That might be confusing eh?!

I’ve posited the probability argument myself. The discussion usually goes no further than three exchanges at best. Most common rebuttal is to call it “a Creationist argument”. Sigh...

One Neo called my use of the standard statistical formula for calculating probability “Creationist math”. Best laugh I had in a long time.

And I explicitly said Naaah. Then I gave you the "looks lik a duck, walks like a duck, and hangs around other ducks"...argument

yeh, why be "fair" but I didnt accuse you of any dementia so you are being hard on yourself.

Your arguments consist of retread Creationist ones .Then you present this **** about a worldwide Flood, without even questioning its dubious veracity. Wait , maybe you ARE mental.

YOU don't get the math, old man.

There's not ONE lotery at play, but trillions.

Each living cell on this planet is one small genetic lotery. And each living gonad on the planet, be it from humans, birds, rats, monkeys or fish, every single testicle or ovary out there, and each flower on this planet too, is one huge genetic lotery.

Well that ought to be simple to demonstrate in the lab. Care to share any success stories?

"There's not ONE lotery at play, but trillions. "

EXACTLY the point, mate! Thanks!

Now, work on your math!