Why do people deny evolution?

@InfraBlue,

You said I implied 'impossibilities'.

I asked where you thought I did that.

You replied:

Quote:

It's where you ask about placing bets.

Really, you think placing bets is related to 'impossibility'?
Why would anyone bet on something that was impossible?
Betting is all about probabilities, not impossibilities.
Do I even have to point this out?

I dont think we can get anywhere with this.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Jeez. You're implying that it would not be a good bet because of the long odds.

You certainly aren't saying that evolution would be a good bet.

The same applies to your ideas of ID.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

You're thick. I'm not criticizing some 'ID', just your ridiculous theory of an 'ID'. It is wholy irrational and self-centred.

The universe is just too big, and us too small, to rationally assume that it was built for us by some intelligence who cared so much about little us human beings.

If there was one single bacteria living in the Empire State Building, this bacteria would be ill-founded to assume that the whole skyscrapper was built just so that she could live in it.

Likewise, the time past since life appeared on this planet is just too long, the number of species which came and disappeared just too large and our presence on this planet way too short for this vast expense of time and all these extinct species to have been a sort of preparation, a setting of the stage for little us. Chances are we're just one species amongst millions, and we too shall pass like the dinos of old.

So the only 'intelligent designer' there could possibly be is some alien race, spreading life from planet to planet, and letting it grow and evolve freely. Resulting in human beings largely by accident rather than by design.

And with that I rest my case. Some bacterias are just too self-centred and thick to be worth my time.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

These people think they are reacting 'rational' and 'logical'.
Of course they are not, if you just look at their reactions.
I really haven't seen one logical response here.
Even worse, if they don't like it they will ridicule you and what not.
But logic, ehh, no!

They reject by default what they don't like or don't understand.
Kind of children that only eat what they want instead of eating what is
healthy for them

But that is what formal 'education' does to the children. It really, really, really is brainswashing the children to their core. I try to be patient with them, or as I tried a few postings back, use babysteps.

But then just look at how difficult it is for them all. I think they feel their
views are beings, slowly but surely, threatened.I once also believed the evili-loton crap, (they seem to conveniently forget), but if one really digs into the whole beast with an open mind it is very easy to see how absurd it all is.
I don't agree with all of your views, but I do agree with what you see are the huge flaws in evil-lotion.

Once I learned about the so many hoaxes, I thought , well, if it is all true why make these hoaxes? And there is so much more.

Another thing people don't get. I am no creationist (but if I dig into it all I am certainly prepared to change my mind).if one has critique on the evil-lotion, one is automatically a 'religious nutcase (whatever that is). Which also proves
they think like childeren. it is called 'black & white" thinking.

And don't forget that if some-ones (finally) sees the huge flaws in evil-lotion, then they have to start many many questions about other things they have learned.That may feel very dangerous for some.
For them it is like this:

http://statusmind.com/images/2014/11/Smart-Quotes-50865-statusmind.com.jpg

And then there is this that applies to some people here, and so clear to see
to whom:

http://www.how-matters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Upton-Sinclair-quote-1024x768.jpg

2 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

Good stuff! Glad to hear that you do not put any faith into the belief that randomness can create bacteria, which then can create a human being👍

You said: ‘I am no creationist (but if I dig into it all I am certainly prepared to change my mind)
I am kind of curious what you mean by this?

It sounds kind of like the process I went through. After first acknowledging the bankruptcy of evolution, and after concluding the engineering and design all around us screams intelligent designer, I then began to ask who is the intelligent designer?
You?

3 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

Quote:

I am kind of curious what you mean by this?

I am very critical and actually reject the evil-lotion crap by now.
But I haven't figured out that ID would do the trick.

You see , there is also another option,( and probably a lot more.)
(This needs a big lessening of b/w thinking.)

This 'universe' is a computer simulation, so there must be a maker or makers
who made this simulation/ But by no means is that a God or a religious
something, but to be fair, still working on this idea, that we live in a computer simulation.

0 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

Quote:

Good stuff! Glad to hear that you do not put any faith into the belief that randomness can create bacteria, which then can create a human being👍

Well, and the bacteria should be made from the rock and some water!

silly sods!

0 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

Quote:

It sounds kind of like the process I went through. After first acknowledging the bankruptcy of evolution, and after concluding the engineering and design all around us screams intelligent designer, I then began to ask who is the intelligent designer?
You?

Yeah, kind of see my above reply.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

🤔
Well, seeing that you are familiar with probability, what do you make of this?

http://www.believers.org/hughross.htm

Since these thirteen prophecies cover mostly separate and independent events, the probability of chance occurrence for all thirteen is about 1 in 10^138 (138 equals the sum of all the exponents of 10 in the probability estimates above).

For the sake of putting the figure into perspective, this probability can be compared to the statistical chance that the second law of thermodynamics will be reversed in a given situation (for example, that a gasoline engine will refrigerate itself during its combustion cycle or that heat will flow from a cold body to a hot body)--that chance=1 in 10^80.
Stating it simply, based on these thirteen prophecies alone, the Bible record may be said to be vastly more reliable than the second law of thermodynamics!

Each reader should feel free to make his own reasonable estimates of probability for the chance fulfillment of the prophecies cited here. In any case, the probabilities deduced still will be absurdly remote.

Personally, as I have Concluded that the evidence around us screams for an intelligent designer, I have also concluded that biblical scripture is of a higher intelligence.
I have concluded the ‘who’ Designed and created the universe can be known as well.
Thoughts?

2 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

have to take some time to look into this, but I promise you I will come back on this.

0 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

The unlikelihood of the prophesies is a good argument but equally unlikely to convince anyone who does not believe the Bible is credible. Most here think it was all fabricated.

I was captivated by the unlikelihood of our existence long before the term Intelligent Design was a thing. I was about 7 at the time (64 years ago). For much of my life I had no idea that there would be any kind of scientific evidence to support that conclusion. When I started studying cellular biology I was blown away and wondered why everyone didn’t see the obvious requirement for design behind it.

My background was in computer hardware and software design so maybe it was easier for me to see the parallels. Life is a digital design based completely on information flow!. No one, not even the most confirmed atheist can deny that if they understand cellular biology.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

" Life is a digital design based completely on information flow!."

Well doesn't hat confirm the Universe is made by a computer hypothesis?

0 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

Quote:

And don't forget that if some-ones (finally) sees the huge flaws in evil-lotion, then they have to start many many questions about other things they have learned. That may feel very dangerous for some.

Yes, in their minds it would be dangerous. It would mean re-thinking their entire world view. Most automatically assume they would have to embrace the things they quite properly abhor - religious fundamentalism. That is unthinkable, so in that terrified state of mind they strike out against the thing that made them question their world view.

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
" Life is a digital design based completely on information flow!."

OG said:
Well doesn't hat confirm the Universe is made by a computer hypothesis?

That has a lot going for it but when you look at it critically, it begins to require a programmer with the same attributes that I would attribute to the apparent intelligent designer of this universe. The attribute I’m thinking of is - credible deniability, an environment where there is no smoking gun evidence of the designer's existence, or at least a credible alternative explanation. This would be no small feat if the sentient life you created (or programmed) were intelligent enough to be interesting. If they were intelligent, they could also eventually figure out the reality behind their existence.

My main objection to the simulation theory is much like Olivier's objection to the designer. Not because of all the excess space that bothers Olivier, but because of the unnecessary detail in the simulation. Why have this many layers to the structure of matter? It would have made sense to cut off the simulation at atoms and their components. Why quarks, bosons, flavors, fields, etc. And then the damn uncertainty principle, spooky action at a distance; there seems to be no end to the complexity to this stuff. Why burden the CPU with this stuff if it serves no purpose other than to keep us mystified?

Unless that was what the designer/programmer intended?

So there really is no functional difference between my designer and your programmer. Even if you want to look at it theologically, they become the same thing. This universe is a matrix of artificial construct to simulate or house something that exists in another dimension.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

That is the beauty of things like the Dead Sea Scrolls huh?
An archeological find which confirms the old testament manuscripts have not changed in the past 2200 years. To refute any idea of fabrication, And also supports the many prophecies written long ago.
(Keep this in mind too oldgrumpy)
http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

Yeah, I hear ya. It is a wonder how anyone does not see the obvious design behind our world in Which we live. The sinful mind of mankind is My Conclusion. Denying their maker.

1 Reply

@Helloandgoodbye,

Quote:

That is the beauty of things like the Dead Sea Scrolls huh?

Yes, but damn few here know enough about them to for it be meaningful. But you would think they would believe historians who have made the Bible the most authenticated document(s) of that era. None of them believe it was fabricated.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

My main objection to the simulation theory is much like Olivier's objection to the designer. Not because of all the excess space that bothers Olivier, but because of the unnecessary detail in the simulation. Why have this many layers to the structure of matter? It would have made sense to cut off the simulation at atoms and their components. Why quarks, bosons, flavors, fields, etc. And then the damn uncertainty principle, spooky action at a distance; there seems to be no end to the complexity to this stuff. Why burden the CPU with this stuff if it serves no purpose other than to keep us mystified?

Well, the problem is here, that these theories are very wrong and not valid at all. So once you understand that, it can't be used as a counter argument, of course.
Like evolution. all the mainstream physics theories like relativity and quantum mechanics are bollocks.

Furthermore, I will see if I can find the article somewehere. but it seems that physicist have found a kind of computercode in the fabric of the matter.

Furthermore, mathematically, series like Fibonacci and the Golder Ratio also point to a computerversion of reality, just like the smallest discrete 'thing"(pixel?) possibible. p.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

Quote:

it seems that physicist have found a kind of computercode in the fabric of the matter.

That would be interesting. Haven’t heard about that.

But mainstream science has already found and acknowledged coded languages and how the hardware of the cell runs it in biology.

I would not be so quick to dismiss mainstream physics. They don’t understand the whole picture but reverse engineering something as complex as this existence happens in steps and takes time. We don’t have the blueprints.

1 Reply

@JimmyJ,

Most of the atheists I know were brought up Christian, but none of the christians I know were brought up atheist.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I would not be so quick to dismiss mainstream physics

With all due respect, maybe it looks that way, but it has taken me years to do that. So, please understand, I am noy dismissing it quickly at all.
I once studied physics at university level.

What I have found is that 'mainstream physics' is yes, extremely flawed.
Some of the wrongs I have found in years of studying this are the following. And I won't do it here, but it is all provable.(btw when I was studying physics I didn't see the errors, nobody did!. The study wasn't about thinking about physics, it was about memorizing and calculating as fast as possible. No real thinking or criticizing was ever allowed!)
And I know people here will dismiss it, at least at first. But here we go:
gravity is wrong. relativity is wrong, the nuclear atom is wrong, black holes don't exist, quantum mechanics is very very wrong, relativity (special & general) , are very very wrong and the list goes on and on and on.

Furtehermore, I am bit surprised that if you have found out 'evil-lotion' is wrong, why shouldn't the other scientific fields not being wrong?
We really are being lied to from all sides.

You see, the whole of science has really nothing to do with finding any truths, but the whole of science is created in such a way that it will keep us away from sensitive fields.

'science' is really about control. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

Science and mathematics as taught in our public educational institutions have been dumbed down and rigged to prevent exploration into sensitive areas. This is done through tricks of logic that play upon the intellect’s many vulnerabilities, namely the inability to differentiate absolute from relative values. Certain concepts and variables are discarded on the basis of irrelevance or arbitrariness, when in actuality they are far from arbitrary and instead provide the doorway to secret sciences. Subjects are frequently taught in compartmentalized and overly abstract ways to prevent students from understanding subjects on a gnostic level, meaning on a geometric and intuitive foundation. The latter is necessary to allow true progressive and creative use of knowledge, but what is encouraged instead is applying formulas and definitions in mechanical ways, resulting in refinement rather than evolution of knowledge.

1 Reply

@Mak7098,

Jimmy J. Has left the building..

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know