Why do people deny evolution?

Nope, the USA is definitely NO democracy, that's for sure.

In reality, no, it isn't, but it is defined as such.

Well, I was talking about reality. I guess Grumpy was too.

Who cares about fictional stories about governments...

If you were talking about it, you were actively within that realm. I am not at all sure how you can deny the US is a democracy.

I think you have simply latched onto some meme you heard someone say without ever giving it any thought. This happens a lot with US propaganda and it has people running around mouthing all manner of nonsense they don't understand.





Grumpy is making the point that "democracy" is an illusion, which it is for many western nations. The US is a kleptocracy which maintains the illusion of a democracy to keep the dumbos content.

agreed. I started wondering why you wrote that in the first place, I understand better now.

exactly!

I wrote: If you were talking about it, you were actively within that realm. I am not at all sure how you can deny the US is a democracy.

I missed the 'not'. See below.

If you were talking about it, you were NOT actively within that realm [of reality]. I am not at all sure how you can deny the US is a democracy.

The United States constitution does not guarantee democracy. Article Four, Section Four, guarantees a republican form of government. That section reads, in its entirety: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

That is beside the point, Set. Reality ain't your bag either, is it?

The Founding Terrorists dog and pony show wouldn't have had much chance without it.

Should we all also note that you and everyone else, has, for some time been off topic but you don't really care about that.

You only use the "off topic" crap when you want to stifle free speech and your ass is being handed to you.

What a stunning hypocrite you are, Setanta!

Sex and the evolutionist.....

One thing which is not commonly understood.... Sexual reproduction DOUBLES the genetic cost of holding a population level together. The math behind the theory of evolution says that you only need to raise that cost three or four percent and the species in question will become extinct. So the question is, what benefit could there possibly be which is so huge that it outweighs such a gigantic disadvantage? The answer is that sexual reproduction in organisms more complicated than bacteria or viruses, prevents mutations and recessive genes from annihilating an animal species within a small number of generations. In other words, sex exists precisely for the purpose of PREVENTING the very things which is supposed to make evolutionism work.

Intelligent people deny evolution because evolution is a bunch of bullshit. Basically a brain-dead ideological doctrine masquerading as a science theory.

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:

The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

rather than making my computer hevier by posting these bytes every few months, why not just assign a number to this post and start by saying NUMER 2!!.

How really dim yoou appear to be if you believe this crap. First you argue that something isnt proved and then you go and try to refute what you said in Par 1.

Then you post your tired and completely baseless GUnga isms.

Ever come up with anything new???
What is the issue with irreducible complexity that hasnt been debunked by undergraduate students of biochemistry

Well I think descendants of brianjakub should be the dominate species then. Maybe we could become the majority by elimination.

Or are all men created equal with the inalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness like the American Declaration of Independence states.

I personally recommend that each state should adopt the NSTA's "Next Generation SCience STandards"(NGSS) for their states schools. Most legislators are not aware of whats incorporated (except the few teachers that do occupy seats in their legislatures). The NGSS will stress learning through expeimentation and the scientific method. The very crapolla over which gunga chokes his chicken can be easily tested in the cience lab.

Several states have adopted the standard model in which the religious model is still sought to be snuck into the science class by fundamentalist christians mostly , yet theres no way that any of the tests that can evidence non scientific conclusions (like ID /Creationism) can actually be pulled together.
We can see that theres no way that any "proof" of an ID concept can be mustered or written up as a study experiment.

Even Poppers claims of falsifiability can easily be tested in science and evolution studies (BTW Krl Popper said so himself , thus countering what he originally stated .)
Gunga apparently never got the memos about Poppers reflections nd defaulting to common sense as well as Haldanes "dilemma".
Both these guys said OOPS when shown the facts about "gene costs" and "falsifiability of theories.

Pa adopted these only last year after many yrs of lobbying by PSEA and NSTA.

I defy gunga to come up with some way of testing the Creationist thinking that int just another batch of GUNGA-WOO_WOO

Which you have illustrated, by your highly deceptive behavior, by your lying, by your curt dismissal of the scientific method that you don't want to have anything to do with that.

Then you do, then you don't, then you do, ... .

Can't you see just what a stunning hypocrite you are, farmerman?

nope , not at all. NOW YOU on the other hand , are just nuts

I'm not surprised that someone like you will lie with such ease, farmerman. What, is half your life a lie or is it more?