Why do people deny evolution?

@Leadfoot,

So in the absence of experimental proof for either theory, which do you think is more likely?

Is inferential deduction based on science of any value to us at all? Do we gain nothing by understanding how biological evolution works. Does the steady change in biology over billions of years showing decent with modification give us no clue. Was the transition from chemistry to life a uniquely unnatural event in the history of the universe, unrelated to the billions of years of natural evolution which followed it?

Do you think it is more "likely" that life came about by magic, which has never been demonstrated, anywhere, ever. Or that it came about by natural processes, which demonstrate themselves everywhere, all the time.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Does the steady change in biology over billions of years showing decent with modification give us no clue.

As pointed out earlier, NO!. According to very simple statistics it is sheer impossible.

Just looking at it makes me laugh, that people think that something impossible
becomes suddenly possible if given enough time! Yeaahhhhhh some days cars miraculously appear, assembled and all, just by change, if only given enough time!!!!!! lol, the idea is so extremely stupid!

But, eh, people love to cling to their belief system like stupid evolutionists.
Ah what else is new?

Quote:

Was the transition from chemistry to life

Duh????? what transistion?????????????????????
If you point biologist to it they now say this has nothing to do with 'evolution'
at all. Well the day will come that that they will say that 'evolution' has nothing to with 'evolution'. Mark my words!

Ahhh the sheer stupidity of it all.

2 Replies

Quote:

There is a Nobel prize waiting for the first scientist to provide experimental proof of it, and many have tried.

Well, in reality the Nobel Prize isn't that good of a thing at all!
Mostly won by plagiarist, thiefs and warlords (e.g. the extremely stupid Obama)

0 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

Quote:

According to very simple statistics it is sheer impossible

Are you aware that often several genes are involved in a single polymorph? Thats sorta why Haldane abandoned his "Statistical dillema" and rejoined science

Quote:

If you point biologist(sic) to it they now say this has nothing to do with 'evolution'
at all

an organic chemist will say the same, as will earth scientists.
Breeding cows is not the same as making various flavors of ice cream.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Do we gain nothing by understanding how biological evolution works.

It is an assumption based on yet another assumption.
But it does not matter whether it is true or not to science. They study what is in front of them, see that it was derived from something earlier. That’s interesting and possibly useful, but it does not matter whether 'goddidit' or an accidental mutation did. We got what we got. What possible difference could it make to the scientist?

The truly useful thing we got out of our understanding of DNA is that it is highly structured, predictable (when properly understood) and most of all, capable of being changed. (BTW, I’ve just described 'software' there too)

Quote:

Does the steady change in biology over billions of years showing decent with modification give us no clue.

It might, if that were true, but it isn’t.

Quote:

Was the transition from chemistry to life a uniquely unnatural event in the history of the universe, unrelated to the billions of years of natural evolution which followed it?

All the evidence so far says Yes.
Whether it is unrelated to the changes that followed is a different question. I asked you earlier if the first was unnatural, would it be unreasonable to assume the second was too?

Quote:

Do you think it is more "likely" that life came about by magic, which has never been demonstrated, anywhere, ever. Or that it came about by natural processes, which demonstrate themselves everywhere, all the time.

I don’t believe in magic or accidental chemistry resulting in life as we know it.

Out of all the trillions of cubic light years in the known universe, we know of one tiny planet where it happened. That’s hardly everywhere. Call me when we find life anywhere else.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I don’t believe in magic or accidental chemistry resulting in life as we know it.

You seem to have eliminated the only two possibilities. So what exactly do you speculate resulted in life as we know it?

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

The mjath is only good if the assmptions on which the reasoning os based are valid. Since several of the assumptions on which the denialist statistics are based are not true, the math is not valid. Your statistics argument does not hold water.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

The mjath is only good if the assmptions on which the reasoning os based are valid. Since several of the assumptions on which the denialist statistics are based are not true, the math is not valid. Your statistics argument does not hold water.

Well, let's assume what you are writing here is true. Then you must be able to EXACTLY pin point what assumptions are wrong, otherwise this is way too vague and not saying anything. So, what assumptions are wrong then?
And please, please be more explicit and not so vague as you are here.
That is just like saying something is wrong because it is based on flaw assumptions.
Way too general and not saying one thing.
Give it to me. I know you can't.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

The deluge was a Sumerian myth, as I explained. The Sumerians themselves dated it to 35000 BC or thereabout, based on Sumerian king lists of old. These lists typically begin with antediluvian rulers .

The ascribed reign lengths are impossibly long, not unlike biblical patriarchs. But locations of the kingship gives a clue. Kingship was seen as handed down by the gods and could be transferred from one city to another, reflecting perceived hegemony in the region.

Quote:

Rulership which from heaven descended:

At Eridu rulership (began).
At Eridu Alulim was king.
He ruled 28800 years.
Alagar ruled 36000 years.
Two kings.
64800 years they ruled.
Eridu was overthrown.

The rulership passed to Bad-tibira.
At Bad-tibira Enmenluanna ruled 43200 years.
Enmengalanna ruled 28800 years.
d'Dumuzisib ruled 36000 years.
Three kings.
They ruled 108000 years.
Badtibira was overthrown.

The rulership was established at Larak.
At Larak Ensibzianna ruled 28800 years.
One king.
He ruled 28800 years.
Larak was overthrown.

The rulership passed to Sippar.
At Sippar Enmenduranna was king and ruled 21000 years.
One king
He ruled 21000 years.
Sippar was overthrown.

The rulership was established at Shuruppak.
At Shuruppak Ubardudu was king and ruled 18600 years.
One king
He ruled 18600 years.

Five cities, eight kings.
They ruled 241.200 years.
Then the Flood came (upon the Land).

After the Flood had come,
The rulership descended from heaven.
At Kish there was the rulership.
At Kish, Ga-ur became king.
He ruled 1200 years.
Gulla-Nidaba-anna ..... reigned 960 years.
......

Translation bt Langdon, S. (1923). The Weld-Blundell Collection, vol. II. Historical Inscriptions, Containing Principally the Chronological Prism

Archeologists say that Eridu -- perhaps the earliest city in the world -- was founded c. 5400 BC, close to the Persian Gulf. The locations and precise dates of foundation of Bad-tibira and Larak, the second and third cities to exercise kingship in Sumer according to the king liust, are unknown. The earliest excavated levels at Shuruppak (modern Tell Fara in southern Iraq), and Sippar (modern Tell Abu Habbahnear 30 km southwest of Baghdad) date to about 3000 BC, but the sites have been poorly studied and older horizons might exist. Kish, the first city to rule Sumer after the flood, was founded in approximately 3100 BC according to wikipedia.

So the Sumerian king lists would place the deluge around 3000 BC, give or take a few hundred years. This corresponds with the end of the "Uruk period", an early neolithic urban culture in Mesopotamia (3100 BC), but it also allegedly matches the Piora Oscillation, an abrupt cold and wet period generally dated c. 3200 to 2900 BC. During this period the surface of the Dead Sea rose nearly 100 meters, then receded to a more usual level.

A few commentators have associated the climate changes of this period with the floods of the Gilgamesh epic.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

You seem to have eliminated the only two possibilities. So what exactly do you speculate resulted in life as we know it?

Only a philosophical belief could account for a belief that those are the only two. Even farmerman allows for the possibility of panspermia.

From the available data I can’t say who or what, but it is obvious that who/what ever designed DNA based Lifeforms possessed an intelligence far beyond any human. But all I’ve been driving at is that blind chance could not have been responsible. That’s my conclusion based on biological science, not my theistic beliefs. It is possible that they made it possible for me to at least consider other possibilities but they don’t dictate conclusions.

I mentioned before that I have talked to scientists in biology who know some IT that agree, DNA and related systems do exactly resemble software controlled systems (but they say it is only 'appearance'.) They will discuss it at length which often helps me gain more knowledge of biology and ironically, continues to build the case for it being 'software'. Other scientists do blow me off with ‘It's a ludicrous idea', but they are never willing to explain why.

The 'blindness' in biological sciences to the design in biology is what I am currently fascinated with. I struggle to stay away from theological explanations for that, because it almost begs for theological ones.

4 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Its not blindness that steers their research. Its deeper knowledge drawn from experience with what theyve actually seen as far as species biogeography, extinction and extinction events, as well as environmental changes that either affect evolution or (as you may have to admit"Evolution due to some IDer actually affects the environmental changes)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Again, they haven’t seen anything evolve.
Darwinian evolution is just a narrative that appears to fit the fossil record.
Like the architecture of organic life appears to have been designed.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

who/what ever designed DNA based Lifeforms possessed an intelligence far beyond any human.

And who/what designed them?

That's the main problem I see with ID: it solves nothing, it just kicks the problem of the origins of life further down the road.

0 Replies

What kind of jackass designed the duck billed platypus? What kind of design flaw is our appendix? What was the design purpose of cholera, ebola, prions? Any alleged designer was a first class dickhead.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

We've seen evolution happen. You see every year when you catch rhe flue.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Again, they haven’t seen anything evolve

. Ive gotten tired posting examples that counter your above mantra.
I realize that you MUST deny facts in order to maintain your belief system, but youre becoming a bore by dismissing really good science
based on your naive acceptnce of "Bible tract" writings by untrained and inexperienced Creationists over thousands of museum and university scientists whove documented and published many of the examples wherein evidence of evolution of higher taxa in historical times has been convincingly presented and defended.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

By the way, mNY of your brotherhood confess a belief in "microevolution" and deny that it is evidenced on a larger scale called "macroevolution". If that is a case, I believe that youre scientific "tem" should be busy trying to provide evidence that something STOPS microevolution from continuing until different (higher or lower) taxa evolve from parent species.

I believe that noone is working on that. You guy merely spout out how "macro evolution is impossible , noones ever seen it happen" ,all against good clean well documented and peer reviewed evidence

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Panspermia only pushes the question of how life started to some place outside of earth, it doesn’t add a third option beyond magic or natural cause. And you definitely have not ruled out natural process. I know in your mind you have, but you really haven’t.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

From the available data I can’t say who or what, but it is obvious that who/what ever designed DNA based Lifeforms possessed an intelligence far beyond any human. But all I’ve been driving at is that blind chance could not have been responsible.

So, in conclusion, you have stated your theory of software and biology, dismissed all evidence and argument to the contrary and declared your position to be correct. Then from that you have deduced conclusively that it is not possible for blind chance, ie natural cause, to have been responsible.

Along the way you've suggested Panspermia as an alternative option, denied that Methodological Naturalism is a part of science, (going to far as to claim it doesn't even exist), suggested that we don't actually see evidence for decent with modification, and just generally denied a wide range of facts and decades of professional research surrounding evolution. All in a desperate attempt to support you carefully nuanced "non Theological" conclusion.

Well, thank you Professor Leadfoot. It has been very informative attending your class on "why people deny evolution".

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Well, thank you Professor Leadfoot. It has been very informative attending your class on "why people deny evolution".

Actually, when you study the structure of the evolution THEORY and how
it is taught, makes it extremely clear it is a form of mind-control of which it is very difficult to escape. It can be done but for most it won't be an easy job.
Rational discussion won't help because that never helps with deep mind control programs like this. What does help is to see that is is a form of deep mind -control. Of course the slaves will now going to dismiss that this is so! That is the part of mind-control. Just compare with e.g. scientology.

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know