Why do people deny evolution?

The explaination cannot possibly come from you: you have none... Either it'll come from science, or it will come from some god or another.

hmm there is that black and white thinking again. boy, sorry to ask, but what is your age?

Old enough to know your type.

that young , eh?! figures!

Now that we're getting all personal, where're you from, old fart?

no fart yes old, so old that I can easily see through all the bullshit around us, boy.

Which is fine, you see such complexity as proof of divine intervention, fair enough.

However, other people don't see that at all they see such complexity as a series of random events/reactions.

You can't expect people to accept your interpretation and then get upset when they don't, that's not how it works.

You don't like questions very much, do you?

"You don't like questions very much, do you?"

Of course I do, little boy, of course I do. I love questions.

But I don't like your very stupid questions, little boy!

I love you too, old fart.

Polypeptides are 2 or more and usually refers to fragments that are non functional.

Also not mentioned so far is the necessity for the amino acid string (polypeptide) to be properly folded into a specific shape for it to be functional. The polypeptides can’t do this themselves. They rely on yet another organelle to do that function. This is yet another barrier to accidental causes doing the job.

Upset? Where do you get that?

Of course, we all have to decide for ourselves and I would defend anyone’s right to make that choice.
I just maintain that the ID hypothesis is much more reasonable explanation for life and the diversity of it.

We have unlimited examples of high levels of complexity coming from intelligent actors but there are none resulting from accident unless you count 'life'. The only reason people accept the idea of chance resulting in such complexity is due to Methodological Naturalism, which is by definition, not scientific. True science makes no assumptions.

PS: I have previously mistakenly lumped M.N. Into science. I now renounce that error, it has nothing to do with Science.

First, you have to prove this intelligent actor exists. Many of us believe in nature and evolution. No hokus pokus in the sky.

Don’t be an idiot.

Do you have to prove that the guys who designed your computer, car or kitchen can opener exist in order to know they were the product of an intelligence?

If your toaster, roadster and tee-vee were retrieved from mountains of junk in the surrounding landscape, the evidence of intelligence would be far less convincing. But analogies such as that always fail because they take into consideration the mechanism of natural selection, and the complexity of genes. The heating elements in a toaster cannot be anything but heating elements. But genes can express a number of traits--in effect, your heating elements might turn into dehumidifiers. A marvelous example is provided by the cetaceans. Life crawled out of the oceans, developed for hundreds of millions of years, until finally producing mammals--who crawled back into the ocean giving us everything from sea otters to blue whales, the largest animals on the planet.

But such failed analogies also assume at the outset that development is determinate. Characteristics which don't promote successful reproduction, but also don't hinder can be and are retained. To assume a sentient, self-conscious intellect behind the diversity of life is, by implication, to assume a plan. Absolutely no evidence of any such plan exists, no matter what religionists natter on about.

So if a UFO crashed into the mountains, people would stand around and actually say ‘there is no intelligent alien being?!’
No!

We know bacteria is a marvel of engineering, not just s blob of life. So why make a similar statement to that of s UFO?!
Why? Well so ppl can make themselves Gods, dictating right from wrong.

Also, lifeforms, like cars, can ‘adapt’ automatically sure....but only by design of course! They too have their limits.
Cars headlights or sunroofs can be triggered by ‘sensors.’ Likewise with biological machinery.

Sticking our heads in the clouds and concluding bacteria can be created by ocean vents in a chemical soup is absurd!
Just as concluding bacteria can turn into a person yet we know from scientific studies that not even a single protein can be observed, repeated, and demonstrated being ‘a step up’! Not even the slightest improvements! (Like a toaster which is ‘stuck as a toaster’)
Dogs will always be part of the dog Kind.
Cats be always cat ‘kind’ or (DNA grouping)
Whales always be whale kind...’stuck again’
Humankind ....u get the point. We are ‘stuck’ within our designed limits.

No amount of DNA rearrrangent can produce new DNA. Just rearrangement.
Like lottery numbers.
1234567
Or
7654321
And many different combinations sure. But never a ‘new’ number can be added without intelligence.

Likewise with even simple proteins.
Here:
http://www.icr.org/article/8214

I think the first step any reasonable person should make in life is acknowling the bankruptcy and illogical position of evolution ‘theory’/religious worldview.

Scientific observations and understanding scream and demand a designer!
But, again, ppl who wish to be their own gods are free to self deceive themselves, and believe in randomness for sure, despite scientific discoveries and understanding.
They can rely on lame interpretations of fossils, and dating techniques yeilding millions of years because they are loaded with assumptions.

🤷‍♂️It is too bad, it really is🤷‍♂️

That's not true of all peptides/polypeptides. Some are functional and not folded, eg Glucagon.

No need to get all angry about theology. If your god resents people discussing and deciding things by themselves, he's a loser.

Angry? That would be a loser kinda god huh?

The real losers in this discussion are those who rely on the soi-disant Institute for Creation Research for their lame talking points. Now there is a purblind case of making assumptions in advance of examining any evidence.