Why do people deny evolution?

Farmerman, as I sit here today doing exactly the very thing you tell me I don’t, I ponder the futility of communicating anything related to the subject.

FWIW, reading the literature and pondering the various aspects of the subject is by far the activity that takes up most of my waking hours.

Also FWIW, there is no conflict between what I mean by ID and Science. Forget for a moment your religious connotations of ID and tell me what you think the conflict is.

'Generally' is not a synonym for 'always'. 'Life' is one such exception to the 'safe bet'. There is zero evidence for it occurring 'naturally'. The laws of physics provide no explaination for it. These are facts of science at the current time. I think it is you who have missed them.

And therefore you believe in Santa Claus. Ok.

Your ID is a "god of the gaps", a god for the stuff we can't as yet explain scientifically. Like thunder for the ancient Greecs had to be a god...

youve already spilt your beans by invoking all the supernatural stuff in posts gone by> If you doubt that you have done so, let others besides me provide input.

If you spend time as you say ,reading may I understand th concept of spandrels in divergent and convergent evolution?. (What do both scientists and the IDers say). How bout the FACT that amino acids can be seen in star spectra. Do you have an ID answer scientifically defended ,for why all of lifes proteins are levo rotatory?. Give an ID answer as to why it took over a Billion years for life to appear as ARchea and ,scientifically , can you explain why was another 1.4 Billion years let gone by for Archea to ascend in complexity and eukaryotes to appear?

NOW, heres the punch line---Do not, in any answer descend to a supernatural causation because ,what weve all been trying to pxlain to you, NO SUPERNATURAL cause can be either defended or rejected based on any evidence.
SO, if evidence cant be presented, it aint science. I really have no idea how you can walk that rail.

Your consistant insistence that ID is as akin to the sciences as is science bothers the **** outta me. I doubt that you comprehend the lack of counter factual information in that assertion of yours. SInce most of your arguments are "lifted" from friendly literature (the only peer review it receives is to make sure that the word God has been removed from recognition ) one never sees the counter facts that render much of the assertions empty.

Do you read stuff like nature biology? or Evolution or Genetics journals. Youd need a decent college library to gather it for easy consumption because the net is generally closed to non subscribers and easy reading is not a feature of web pubs.
I subscrib to Scienc, GSA, Paleontology and Evolution. My associate in the Foram program is a paleogeneticist and she subscribes to several Evo/Devo pubs besides Nature Biology and Paleogenetics pubs . The CRI and Discovery Intitute, as well as several of the Creationist Pubs are usually easily gotten on the web as open file stuff.

A visit to the Galapagos Islands would be very helpful for him. The Darwin finches is a good place to start.

It would be "ilent" to him. Im more concerned that his worldview is demanding that he think the very way of which he accuses science

ever hear of Shrodingr's Physics of the Living State?
How about Nigel Rosenfeld's papers about the physics beneath evolution??

Apparently, you don't pay attention. I've already pointed out the distinction between educated faith and blind faith, and provided a concrete example from real life. Calling a healthy respect for naturalism "blind faith" is just another example of the god squad fighting in the last ditch--or rather, clutching at straws.

Naturalism is not a religion, and your quote and response is a classic non-sequitur. What actual religion has ever admitted error and made cortections?

If the answer to that does not instantly pop into your head, you are ignorant of religious history. Not to mention science history.

I'm not a fan of gods (as an atheist) so I'm ignorant of religious history. When has religion ever admitted error and made corrections?

Nope, not when discussing only the subject of abiogenesis or macro evolution.

When others ask about possible motives an intelligent designer migh have (Olivier and others call it various spellings of god or spaghetti monster) I will offer plausible guesses. But I’m only offering a logical guess as to what an intelligent rational designer might make, not a religious assertion.

How can an intelligent designer be a logical guess?

Here’s the deal CI, if that’s true, I could tell you anything and you’d have to take my word for it. Stupid for both of us, right? So why bother.

But the real point is that if the guy who asked that question knows as much history as he claims (and I think he does), then he is not arguing in good faith. He’s just diverting attention from the real argument. Happens a lot here. Or he’s just baiting me for some juvenile gotcha argument. IDK

Why would you want to lie? You have a problem with lying? Also, I don't believe in any one opinion on subjects that are important. However, religion isn't that important to me, so lie away.

Not what I said, but I’ll play anyway.

Because we have never seen anything as complex as the simplest cell self organize itself. Not to mention, come to life, reproduce, self repair, etc. Got any examples to the contrary?

I thought even CI would remember this one.

you dont think that self assembly of non living compouns including amino acids purines pyrimidines and 3 -d polymers should make you think? Or are you just making believe that you have a full-on scientific curiosity??

In random order? No, nothing unusual there.
In an order clever enough to turn itself into you or me without assistance? Different story.

ok, explain why?