Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

However I wouldn't agree that this finding makes the Bible flood tale "scientifically correct" but it certainly was ameans to develop a moral lesson about obeying the new, somewhat narcissistic and psychotic god.

I think there are doubts to have about much in the ancient world. The interesting thing about the scientific approach of the book was that it was possible. It helped answer common questions about the claim of a flood and the animals involved. The Black Sea basin seemed to have taken place at a time acceptable to me for that event, the place Noah was supposed to have settled down seems more likely . . which also indicated that they are still looking in the wrong places, though the whole finding Noah's Ark is practically worthless to me, I don't need anyone to find it.

As far as God goes, if you ever meant to understand him, thinking of him as just another dude isn't going to help you. Not that I think you haven't made up your mind about him.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

The flood is a Sumerian myth, most probably related to a (or several) real, large-size flood that may have happened in the floodplains of Iraq circa the dawn of civilization. The Jews picked up the flood myth during their exile in Babylon, as well as much material for Genesis, e.g. the modeling of Adam from clay, the only building material in Sumer.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

It is not hard to see the evidence for global flood, just as it is not hard to see the evidence for intelligent design.
All about the interpretation.

1 Reply

Let’s look at preacherfarmermans interpretation of the global flood. He calls it a psychotic move, When in reality the morally bankrupt civilization of Noah’s day simply stood judgement, and it terribly saddened God to put humanity in those days to death.
Just as dropping an atomic bomb is terribly sad....yet justified.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote: ‘You realize we USE fossils in resource detection and, were we to, instead, use some sort of Biblical "Science" wed be looking for oil in Ice caps andUranium in beach deposits’

That is great if we use fossils to detect resources. Whether it be real geologic studies which produce such results, or real biological studies which produce results like cures to disease. I love when real science produces.
However, if and when we use Evolutionary ‘science’ Men with PhD’s end up Searching for life on other planets, or half monkey man creatures like Sasquatch, whales with legs and reptiles with feathers.
How is the search for these things working out? u see? Lol. What a waste.

2 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

so you blame only evolution for"wasting money in space"?? (I really think most of the science results e offered up as a result of men in space, is directly associated with "weaponizing" space, and that train had left the station decades ago. Dont be naive." What super govt agency runs NASA.Now that Plump will take credit for opening the Space Force taking away NASA from the USAF,(sorta like what the USAF did when it broke from the USArmy after WWII).

Looking for life is not an evolution"ism" until we actually find some kinda life in space.

1 Reply

@Helloandgoodbye,

' "Whales with legs" is a tool in biostratigraphy. I really think you should educate yourself a bit better on the subjects involved before uttering nonsense out your ass.

0 Replies

Which men with PhDs are looking for Sasquatch? Are there no women with PhDs involved in the search? Are you aware that there are women with PhDs who are involved in scientific research?

0 Replies

God is a "him?" How do we know this? Oh, wait . . . it's in your book of bronze age fairy tales, right?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Anyone searching for ‘alien life’ is wasting time and money for sure.
Based on the religious ‘pseudo science’(belief in evolution) that life can be created by natural forces and evolve.
Anyone (yourself included) writing articles and textbooks teaching evolution too of course.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/God-is-spirit.html

1 Reply

@Helloandgoodbye,

By what authority are you speaking ? You know that there is no alien life? So qw shouldnt go into space at all? what should we be doing to get outta Dodge when the sun goes nova.??

0 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

This is from the "About" link of that two-bit religious shyster site you linked:

Quote:

"Got Questions Ministries seeks to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by providing biblical, applicable, and timely answers to spiritually related questions through an internet presence."

GotQuestions.org is a ministry of dedicated and trained servants who have a desire to assist others in their understanding of God, Scripture, salvation, and other spiritual topics. We are Christian, Protestant, evangelical, theologically conservative, and non-denominational. We view ourselves as a para-church ministry, coming alongside the church to help people find answers to their spiritually related questions.

Oh yeah . . . that's a reliable source . . . Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Are you suggesting that DNA, or even RNA was the first replicative molecule? If not, are you suggesting the first replicatave molecule, whatever it may have been, was not capable of arising naturally?

I have seen no evidence of a self replicating, self sustaining organism/molecule capable of evolving coming about by natural causes, so no, at this point I don’t believe one could happen that way. There is a Nobel prize waiting for the first scientist to provide experimental proof of it, and many have tried.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

you seem to be obsessed with the RNA orld hypothesis. There are many replicating pe biotic compounds and chem atructures. You seem to forget that most of the prebiotic chemicals that replicate, do so in a saturated ,( especially a " super-saturated ")type solution or complex. Thats where the helical structures of siderites and oxyhydroxide iron complexes occur.

I dont think such a discovery will be Nobel worthy unless someone re creates a new style of life and defines a principle of its occurence.
Even DNA an RNA were already known for about 75 years before Watson and Crick stole much of their structural models from Rosalyn Fraanklin, nd defined DNA's, inner physics and its my feeling that the real understandings of the nucleic acids didnt come about til Francis jcobs and with 25 more years later with Kech and Altmans work on how it all plays out in the "living state".

0 Replies

@Helloandgoodbye,

So cite someof the evidence for a global flood that you seem to think is easy to find. It's all been repeatedly torn to shreds.

0 Replies

Ain't enough water on earth for a global flood... and then, who saved the kangoroo couple, the lamas, and the orang outans?

One would have to be very very stupid to take that tale literally.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Are you suggesting that DNA, or even RNA was the first replicative molecule? If not, are you suggesting the first replicatave molecule, whatever it may have been, was not capable of arising naturally?

I have seen no evidence of a self replicating, self sustaining organism/molecule capable of evolving coming about by natural causes, so no, at this point I don’t believe one could happen that way. There is a Nobel prize waiting for the first scientist to provide experimental proof of it, and many have tried.

I’ve seen no evidence of *poofism* either, so until someone proves it in a lab I can’t believe life happened that way either.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

The Creationists deny the facts of continental drift nd mountain building "in those days". After all, if you have a god who created everything all at once and then just gradually introduced them from a "big fridge" why couldnt she hold off mountain building until just before handwriting was invented in Sumer School.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

LOL... Still doesn't solve the kangoroo's problem.

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know