Why do people deny evolution?

I wont and i cant what? Thats no me, you maroon.

yes it is, oh great stupid one.

Go back and check. I never wrote that. You fool. I did give you rvidence too. Tiktaalik.

you gave evidence?

suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeee.



ZzZZzzzZZZZZzzzZZZ

Google it, foool.

When you "repat" yourself , the point flies over your hat again.
You are really a dim bulb.

all my students were post grad scholars. Most of whom have gone on and done some really nifty things in the science.
Ill not disturb you since it would be akin to trying to xplain plate tectonics to a chipmunk.

Ohhhh trying the cheap way out again, eh?!
then we can stop all discussions here and start 'googling'. Oh btw Google is
from the Pentagon. So just you know.

Why do you want to slander unoffending chipmunks with such an invidious comparison.

oh they still trying to defend nonsense. How sweet, but utterly stupid, of course.

here's one. Explain how something other than evolution accounts for allopatric speciation??

Think islands , caves, etc

You are not thinking scientifically here. As is nearly alwasy the case with you.
If you can't find any other THEORY then you have, does NOT automatically prove you are right. ( well, do we ever prove anything in 'science'. of course not)
Anyway, you don't grasp the point that you have to have some kind of 'evidence' for your theory. Otherwise is it just a THEORY or in the case of evil-lotion, a FAIRY TALE and nothing more. Oh and in case you haven't grasped it yet. I am talking about macro-evolution.
Gee, seeing your postings I really wonder sometime if you really ever have been to a school of some sort.

stop trying to sound like a nun an merely answer my question. If youre half as smart as you think you are, you should be able to handle it. Dont worry about me, Im having a very good life thanks to my chosen profession. Now here, give it a try,

Again,

Im taking criticism from a guy who doesnt even know what science is about??

HEE HEE.
Well clown, I guess you arent able to answer the question, I figured as much.

again, if you don't understand 'science' please leave it alone.
A THEORY is NO PROOF, ah well, nevermind, you won't get it.
It's clearly over your head

I really hope that someone like you stays away from kids. I bet you LOVE to program those vulnerable little children, eh?!

Good try BOZO.

You really have no idea in hell what a theory in science even means do ya?? You keep revealing the many layers of stupid in that
brain" of yours.

You are not thinking scientifically here.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. That doesn’t mean that all theories can be fundamentally changed (for example, well established foundational scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics etc). In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton's laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[5] They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine.

As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive, aiming for predictive and explanatory power.

The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."
Albert Einstein described two types of scientific theories: "Constructive theories" and "principle theories". Constructive theories are constructive models for phenomena: for example, kinetic energy. Principle theories are empirical generalisations such as Newton's laws of motion.[8]

BURMA SHAVE

excellent summation. Homucha wanna bet that Quahog has no idea hellyou just said??.