Why do people deny evolution?

"You not only didn't give any solid argument, you gave no argument at all. You must made a statement from authority, and did not even offer a plausible basis for that statement."

So, even good old math can't do it for you? Then nothing will.

But was exactly as expected.

I know 'scientists' and their fanbase are one of the most closed mind folk I know.

Even if there is evidence agains their way, they will deny anything.

Just like Max Planck, once said:

"" "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

I'm just finished with you, that's all.

That's ok too. Saying things are flawed is indeed something else then showing why somehing is flawed. You just don't seem to be able to do that.

And that's telling, but it ok as far as I am concerned.

We now know where you stand.

And we know that you confuse evolution with abiogenesis.

Oh that one again! Another cop out. Well as I said , now you people say that abiogenesis has nothing to do wth evolution (despite it still is in the textbooks, because it once has), so of course it has to shift more and more until you one day can say, evolution has nothing to do with evolution. That would be the day!

Words have meaning, and one needs to chose them well to get understood. If you speak of 'horses' but actually mean 'cows', some amount of confusion is bound to happen... The least you could do is realize your mistake, now that it's been explained to you.

Why would you?

Great! Another cop out!

Be my guest.

The 'Flammarion engraving' is a wood engraving by an unknown artist that first appeared in Camille Flammarion's L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire (1888). The image depicts a man crawling under the edge of the sky, depicted as if it were a solid hemisphere, to look at the mysterious Empyrean beyond. The caption underneath the engraving translates to "A medieval missionary tells that he has found the point where heaven and Earth meet..."

You didn't provide any math. You just blathered some bullshit about math, but you didn't actually provide any, nor even a cursory suggestion of how math applies.

I am not, and have never claimed to be a scientist. That puts us in the same league, because clearly you have no specialized knowledge to offer.

I like the idea that the sky as we see it is a scene, a décor, a pretense, and that a monk could walk to the edge of the sky and see all the mechanisms hidden behind the scene to make the sun, moon and stars move around.

It's a naïve idea of course but the journey of this imaginary monk is reminiscent of the scientific quest for discovery of the 'hidden' laws of physics or biology.

Of course these laws, if they exist, are not literally hidden behind the sky.

well, yes I did explain the math. maybe it went over your head, eh?!

of course I have no specialed knowledge to offer, a lot of common sense get you very far.

It clearly can show you the many many many problems with the evolotion (I know I know) shite.

"Why would you?"

He is shooting himself in the foot, again! lol

Says Mr I can't write a basic sentence.

Shot in the foot? You shot yourself repeatedly in the head before you came on A2K.

Really? lol and where did I do that? Please be specific now. I know I know.


Gee, where DO these people come from?

Think of this as a cosmic primal soup:



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Habitable_epoch

"Think of this as a cosmic primal soup:"

O yeah that one! The one which has been disproven over and over and over....

Just putting words up doesn't say a damn thing now, does it?

Disproven by whom, apart from your rear end?

nevermind, you won't get it.