Why do people deny evolution?

I could not have put it better myself.

As his prophet Richard Dawkins put it, “Darwin made it possible for atheists to live an intellectually fulfilled life.”

Here is a load of Setanta's bullcrap.

The apostle Paul was by his own admission a Jew not a "biased Christian".

Acts 22:3
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Comment:
It is arguable whether if Paul wrote all that is attributed to him but one needs their own bias to argue such a point considering there is no evidence for or to the contrary..

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are also attributed to being Jews as were Timothy and Titus... all of the books are attributed to Jewish writers.

They were biased Jews and your implication then is that these Jews were liars.

As for the Hebrew, Moses who witnessed God create the heavens and the earth and wrote down what he saw... His account is far more suspect than the Jewish apostles account of Jesus...

It is apparent that you are the biased one here dispelling Christianity without any proof of your own.

I am not disagreeing with questions of Jesus' historicity but I do not approach it with your level of arrogance and disgusting certainty.

You lie more and stretch the facts with your own traditional Jewish bias much more than they did Setanta.

To ignore the distinction between an educated faith and blind faith is far more delusional.

Until that occasion in about one to one and a half billion years from now, when our star begins to expand, the earth is not a closed system, so the rules of entropy don't apply.

Dawkins is nothing to me, and Darwin simply has his name all over a theory (in the scientific sense) which Wallace had hypothesized independently, on the other side of the planet. You don't even get a "nice try" on that BS. It was necessary for you to cut out my statement that acceptance of evolution is not a religion.

Ah yes, RR/Cobbler, who has me on ignore . . .

I don't have any "Jewish bias," your crypto-Antisemitism is showing. Keep your hatred of Jews to yourself. I am not Jewish, and I have no brief to support any point of view that you may allege Jews may have. If you had a few more brain cells, you might have done a search for my screen name and divined my ethnic origins. There are no copies of the so-called New Testament any older than the early fourth century. Three hundred years is a long time to doctor texts, and I am unimpressed with anyone's appeal to the scripture of any religion. Matthew may have been a Jew (a body of people you have just vilified as untrustworthy--you can't have it both ways). He probably wrote in the era of 80-90 CE, which would put him three to four generations after the putative "Jesus" is alleged to have died. No one has any idea who "Mark" was, and the majority opinion of scholars is that the author wrote two and a half to three generations after the putative "Jesus" is alleged to have died. No one knows to a certainty who Luke may have been, and he was even farther removed from the events he purports to record. As for John, he might have been any one of three figures believed to have been historical, and he might have been someone entirely different. The majority opinion of scholars is that the so-called gospels of John, the letters of John and the book of Revelations were very likely written by different people.

Once again, no manuscript of the so-called gospels is any older than the early fourth century, three hundred years after the putative "Jesus" is alleged to have died. Your bias is in assuming that the texts are reliable, because you want to believe, not because you have any irrefutable evidence. I am not obliged to disprove anyone's claim, people who make a claim have" the burden of proof. You have completely ignored all that I wrote about the alleged corroborating sources for the historicity of the putative "Jesus. I have not claimed to know whether such an individual lived or not, and I don't care, because I know of no good reason to believe in gods--or fairies, pixies and elves for that matter.

You stop just short of calling me a liar--in effect, that is what you have done. Point out the lies. Put your money where your big mouth is.

Oh . . . that's right, you have me on ignore, don't you? So you'll never read this post.

Be sure to continue to vote down my posts, even though you claim to have me on ignore.

What a petty character.

Don’t make this personal Setanta, it isn’t. We are presumably talking about things that have troubled man's mind throughout all of recorded history.

weve discussed several options to "tree v Bush of life", You should qlo read Lynn Margulis and compare her work on endosymmbiosis v Woese classification systems.

I dont think the jury is completely in on these but ill bet that both Wose and Margulis hqve more in common than we think.

Weve discussed it all before and it bares no weight on ID as a "scientific POV".
(I think you like Woese because it enables the "Supernatural", if read only superficially.

It also plays into the history of evolutionary thinking since after WWII when traits were understood to often be complexes of several (sometimes hundreds) of genes. Nowadays we understand that its even more complex with "extra- chromosomal" genetic material.

AS Ive taken the position before, I find Dawkins a damn good scientist (in his field) his only problem is that he believes that he carries some kind of banner.
originally, had he stopped when he implied that "Cretionism (and post Aguillar, ID) were religious worldviews where conclusions could not be falsified etc etc.
Had he stopped there, most of his substantive arguments tody would be world beaters. Unfortunately he became the Savanarola of Evolution and destroyed much of his credibility.

SCience doesnt want to destroy religious beliefs, It merely wants such beliefs to get the hell away from making defenseless assertions and calling em Science .

This is the kind of false statement used in these discussions all the time.
Wikipedia is certainly no friend to religion but even they have to admit to the facts. True, there is no complete early copy but the original fragments (thousands!) all agree with the later complete copies. That’s pretty good evidence that we have a reliable historical document.

entropy doesnt "pick" an arena within which rules dont apply. Iron rusts,Copper corrodes, plants die an compost, animals decay after they die. Thats all entropy as defined in Thermodynamics. The planet earth is in its own "playground" where, you are correct, we pile up energy as long as our radioactive fuel lasts and the suns Hydrogen continues to go thermonuclear.

While "Life" sustains, most entropy doesnt much apply, because life works AGAINST all chemical gradients (but not physical gradients like gravity or pressure) our energy derived from Adenosine Triphosphate is the result of adenosine 's energy cycle. (as long as Eh an pH remain in the Goldilocks zone of a living cell or organism). Now a steak you may have enjoyed this weekend has demonstrated as much of the initial steps of "disorganization'' that comes with relieving it of being among the living, so entropy occurs all over.

Too much buy-in for universal conjoined entropy (somewhat disjointed among all the mountain ranges, oceans, planets, solar systems etc, is Too much sounding like Gaia. (One thing I think Margulis was all wet about)

while Darwin actually proposed a working theory, both he and Wallace had no clue in hell why traits sustain themselves over generations. Darwin took it that traits became fixed but he merely glossed over his math which actually prooved that such traits SHOULD die off within 6 generations as they become "diluted"

Darwin, it seems, was never really good at math anyway. He hated numbers as much as he hated blood.

Someone should write a better book on Darwins ****-ups .

Woese was no believer in the supernatural but yes, his discoveries do tend to support ID and cast doubt on many of the central dogmas of Neo Darwinism.

Darwin predicted a gradual and orderly progression of evolution and the later genetic research was said to mirror that orderly progression. Except that Woese showed that it doesn't. Genes appear in one species then pop up unexpectedly in another, sometimes leaping from plant to animal kingdom and back again. This violates the basis of Darwin’s tree. Trying to modify Darwin’s tree of life to fit the genetic data makes it look like the rediculous octopus with fused legs thing pictured in the article.

So the Darwin crowd had to come up with new terms like 'infective inheritance' since things were popping up that they didn’t get from their ancestor species. That sounded too unscientific, so they came up with the rationalization that it must be ‘ Horizontal Gene Transfer' since that might explain the inconsistency.

But it also supports the theory of ID since an intelligent designer would not be limited to 'evolution'. A designer is free to use a gene designed for one life form any darn place where it was the best fit for the job.

So yes, Woese's discovery supports ID even though the idea would trouble him personally.

. Any discovery claimed to support ID is totally in the realm of fiction. That's because there is no way to prove ID, the god who is aware of everything that goes on in this world 24/7. It's estimated at 7.6 billion people. Just keeping track of all the life and deaths are daunting.

This is the kind of false characterization to which religionists desperately cling. You have a reference to a single fragment, which might date to the latter half of the second century. My remark was about the so-called New Testament, which is certainly a good deal more than a fragment. It remains true that the oldest copies of that document date to no earlier than the fourth century. If all you have are distortions, I wonder that you take the time to attempt your bullsh*t claims. Once again, three centuries is a long time for interpolations, redactions and outright lies to be accomplished.

You're the one who has attempted to make it personal--how petty your attitude is. You attempt to criticize me for what you do yourself. You certainly have nothing to teach me about "all of recorded history." If you wish to be taken seriously, don't drive up in a clown car.

The most specific definition of entropy applies to thermodynamic input--as long as our star pumps radiation into the system sufficient to support life, without the eventual expansion which will, undoubtedly, quickly end life on this planet, entropy is not a factor. You seem to think that entropy applies to minerals, too. Do you consider the production of oxides to be a case of falling into disorder?