Why do people deny evolution?

see the title of the thread? . Academic Denial of evolution usually sports an attempt at
"heres why I deny it"

(Except here on A2K) Allopatry is a type of macro evolution that IDers usually pass over wherever they can. So far from what Ive seen.
"Evolution doesnt exist because it mathematically cant and besides theres no evidence " (just read some of Ole Grumpsters ravings). You agree that evolution exists but sem to bend strongly to a religious argument . I mention allopatry because its a form of evolution that appears to be strongly tied to a dissected environmental base and two or more changing environments from which the parent species had originated.
Im always interested how "Scientific ID" handles the discussions of a changing nvironment and biological responses.
Just curious , Im sure, by having strong opinions, your opinions have to have some technical roots YES?

If you dont know why something occurs via scientific methods, HOW then, can you even mount an intelligent argument.

In my fild, Ive always taught the phrase that the BEST geologists have been the folks that have seen the most rocks. We are always put upon by rock colletors who argue points out of science ignorance(BUT, when straightened out, some of these folks become scholars). NOT SO with most evolution deniers. They may read one isolated ubjct and then dwell on its power to "PULL DOWN DARWINIAN EVOLUTION", yet they dont recognize the many other points of parallel evience that allow us to explain how this "isolated fact" falls seamlessly into the panoply of all evolutionary evidence.
As I said, JUST CURIOUS.

I can't argue with density, so try to imagine that sometimes words seem like salad to you because you can't understand them and then don't be so arrogant as to attack what you don't understand.

Ha, I don't think I've ever seen anyone accuse Fresco of not understanding words before. That's like accusing Setanta of not knowing history.

whereas that of 'multiverse' is that of a functional mathematical entity emerging from QM which will stand or fall on the basis of its paradigmatic coherence.

Sun 11 Nov, 2018 04:04 am
I would take the opportunity to point out that history is what it is, without regard for narratives that people construct, often to glorify their society, or to excuse its failings. Conspiracy theories are prime examples of narratives which have no relation to history, but only to one's political or social agenda. A classic example of this are the various forms of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy narratives. The fact of the matter is that the Japanese, under the tutelage of Admiral Yamamoto, planned, trained for and executed one of the greatest naval operations in history. Their security was as near to perfect as was possible. It was only after the First Air Fleet was leaving Hitokappu Bay that the personnel of the fleet were told of the target and the nature of the mission. Even the Imperial Navy General Staff knew nothing of it until late September, not even two months before the attack was carried out. Americans at that time had abused Japanese immigrants and second- and third-generation Japanese-Americans routinely since the late 19th century. Stereotypes of buck-toothed, myopic, bandy-legged, almost simian people were common, and that was a stock image of the "Yellow Peril" conspiracy theory of the day. It was profoundly humiliating to have been beaten, and beaten so soundly by a people so universally despised. Despite the investigations by the Army (responsible for the air defenses of Oahu) and the Navy, and two congressional investigations, the sense of a shamed and very angry public was that something devious must have aided the Japanese to have accomplished something of which they were patently not capable. This is the grand-daddy of the modern conspiracy theories, and persists to this day. The amount of bullsh*t peddled in aid of that one is really incredible.

When it comes to bullsh*t historical narratives, nobody can match the conspiracy theorists.

Which college threw you out ?

then perhaps you can explain the ID evidence regarding allopatric evolution, and acquired characteristics that are preserved within two to 4 generations.

Ex:20:5: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Why? Something I wrote?

Everything you write indicates that you are an academic failure with a sour grapes problem.

The mere fact that you think scientific theories could be 'right or wrong' rather than 'useful or limited' shows a complete lack of understanding of what science is about.

Of course, you could be simply be here for the 'Troll of the Year' award, in which case I am pleased to inform you that you are a nominee.

Quote:

Why? Something I wrote?

Everything you write indicates that you are an academic failure with a sour grapes problem. The mere fact that you think scientific theories could be 'right or wrong' rather than 'useful or limited' shows a complete lack of understanding of what science is about.
Of course, you could simply be here for the 'Troll of the Year' award, in which case I am pleased to inform you that you are a nominee.

visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; [/quote So you say that Lamarck had God doing all his thinking?

A clueless response yet again. As a former published and peer reviewed scientist I think I am in a good position to know what 'science is about'.

That word 'morality' was presumably regurgitated from your word salad department because you can't take your preacher's hat off. If you took the trouble to read the literature, you would know I am making an epistemological point and not an ethical or aesthetic one.

But you don't actually write anything much other than your incessant knee jerk reaction to current consensual paradigms. Your alternative cultist crank's paradigm, originating from some self publicist engineer, has no more claim to validity than that of the Flat Earth Society. Hence legitimate Trollhood awaits to embrace you with open arms !