132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2014 12:09 pm
Let's throw some scientists quotes into the playpen..Smile-

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."- Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"- Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.

spendius
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2014 01:54 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
well, hell, let´s call it by it s name. it really is satanic to the core.


This lot of wussies on here don't know what Satanic means. Somebody once said, I forget who, that too much insistence on opposing the Catholic Church is a form of indecent exposure.

It has also been said that many expressions of devout piety towards the Church are a smokescreen to prevent suspicions arising of engaging in what might fairly be called "questionable practices".

Notice Q that nobody has taken on my suggestion that denying evolution has more going for it than embracing it taking everything into consideration. Taking one thing at once, and making a song and dance about it, such as the alleged burning of a cross on a student's arm with a Tesla coil in some nondescript dump hardly ever heard of before, or that a Flagella can be compared to a bicycle pump, under oath, or a new photo-op by Professor Dawkins, say, is strictly for the nonnies whose literary efforts, with their circularities, their ad homs, insults, boastings, non sequiturs, solecisms & Co. are very much in tune with what you will find in the waste-paper basket of an editor of a Reader's Letters column who is only interested in first rate tripe in which indignation thrums its sweetest tunes.

This lot on here are nowhere near being indignant enough. It's obvious they have reservations and doubts. It's a toe-in-the water job. Or a Mom's elbow in the bath.

What's parados on about with the "math"?
parados
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2014 02:38 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
So you are just going to throw a tantrum instead of showing us how smart you are by discussing any of the actual math. I figured as much. Clearly you haven't done the research you claimed.
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2014 03:11 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
it seems that you people really don´t see that all of ´science´ is realy a religion,
it really really is.


Of course it is a religion. It even looks like one. I've seen the mad gleam in the fundie scientific methodologist's eyes and the saliva running down the chin. He was the head of one science department I had some dealings with. Once he got going it soon got a bit insistent. I assumed he thought his understrappers were a bit suspect.

It is based on a metaphysical doctrine that a tube with a hole at each end can come up in the world which Darwin scoffed at in his understated way. Hence all the melodramatic scenes pretending having done so, which the Church introduced into the world and which has been imitated by all western religions including atheism and humanism.
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2014 04:09 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Fred Hoyle was a known "Extraterrestrial panspermist" He bleved that the earth was "Seeded" by aliens. This may be an ok story for tge ORIGIN of life but says nothing about evolution of its varied forms through time. The fact of the evolution of life is quite clear from genetics, the fossil record and radioisotopic history of the planet.
ANYWAY,Freddy only moved the question of "origin" from earth to someplace in space.

Dr Davies is a member of the class of scientists who accept the facts of evolution of life. He only wants someone in control. SInce hes really not a chemist he omits the "controls" that one molecule can exert upon another to react in a constant fashion.

Evolution through a guided "program" by an intelligent designer needs more evidence than science is willing or able to ascertain. Therefore the concept pf naturalism is the basis of all scientific research. I happen to be an atheist but not all scientists involved in evolutionary research are. Some require a "belief base" to direct th facts and evidence.
Others believe but don't require a "meddling intelligence' directing evolution (even if such a beast existed, itd be damn hard t call it "intelligent") , what with all the gazillions of extinctions and dead ends and major events of mass extinctions on the planet.
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2014 05:03 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
even if such a beast existed, itd be damn hard t call it "intelligent")


Only for a wussie wussie daisy with the dew drops on its little white petals.

I dare say that gazillions of extinctions and dead ends and major events of mass extinctions on the planet might be quite entertaining.

Getting worked up about such trifles is a bit uncool for an atheist.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2014 10:57 pm
@parados,
Quote:
So you are just going to throw a tantrum instead of showing us how smart you are by discussing any of the actual math. I figured as much. Clearly you haven't done the research you claimed.


I know what you are doing and so will others.


hint: buy the book and start reading instead of wasting you valuable time here.Wink
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2014 10:59 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Fred Hoyle was a known "Extraterrestrial panspermist" He bleved that the earth was "Seeded" by aliens. This may be an ok story for tge ORIGIN of life but says nothing about evolution of its varied forms through time. The fact of the evolution of life is quite clear from genetics, the fossil record and radioisotopic history of the planet.
ANYWAY,Freddy only moved the question of "origin" from earth to someplace in space.

Dr Davies is a member of the class of scientists who accept the facts of evolution of life. He only wants someone in control. SInce hes really not a chemist he omits the "controls" that one molecule can exert upon another to react in a constant fashion.

Evolution through a guided "program" by an intelligent designer needs more evidence than science is willing or able to ascertain. Therefore the concept pf naturalism is the basis of all scientific research. I happen to be an atheist but not all scientists involved in evolutionary research are. Some require a "belief base" to direct th facts and evidence.
Others believe but don't require a "meddling intelligence' directing evolution (even if such a beast existed, itd be damn hard t call it "intelligent") , what with all the gazillions of extinctions and dead ends and major events of mass extinctions on the planet.


you talk a lot about 'scientific evidence' but there is none.
That's the whole point.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2014 11:01 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Of course it is a religion. It even looks like one. I've seen the mad gleam in the fundie scientific methodologist's eyes and the saliva running down the chin. He was the head of one science department I had some dealings with. Once he got going it soon got a bit insistent. I assumed he thought his understrappers were a bit suspect.

It is based on a metaphysical doctrine that a tube with a hole at each end can come up in the world which Darwin scoffed at in his understated way. Hence all the melodramatic scenes pretending having done so, which the Church introduced into the world and which has been imitated by all western religions including atheism and humanism.


Nice put and I totally agree.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2014 11:10 pm
@spendius,
Nice put, again!

Quote:
What's parados on about with the "math"?


I have suggested to read a book who convincingly shows by statistics(math) that evolution is an impossibility.
He doesn't want to read it offcourse, so he goes on and on and on and on
to ask me silly question of which I already said that it is too much too put here.
Furthermore he has lot of comments and seems to know everything about this book he hasn't read. he is sort of funny from the right perspetive Wink
But he seems to rather make thse postings then to start reading.
Who can blame him if his religion is at stake? Wink

Now I am at it.
For those with eyes to see, it is easy to see that the 'gatekeepers of the relgion called evolution' don't respond rational at all!
They react in exactly the same way, a religious fundamentalist' will do!
Figures!




farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2014 11:30 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
you talk a lot about 'scientific evidence' but there is none.
That's the whole point.
And your entir point is saying the above statement over nd over and over. Its a valueless statement without examples.
Your fear of science shows .
Did you flunk out of community college?

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2014 11:31 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
PS , show where those statements of mine that you quoted were in error.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 2 May, 2014 11:44 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:

I have suggested to read a book who convincingly shows by statistics(math) that evolution is an impossibility.
Which parados asked you nicely to discuss because HEY, this is a discussion board. Stop being an intellectual coward .
If you just sling empty accusations and continue to posture like some latter day Bishop Wilberforce,you show your total ignorance of the subject.
Have a little backbone and educate parados and me.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 3 May, 2014 01:41 am
@farmerman,
He was also a lousy novelist. I had to read The Black Cloud when I was at school. I like science fiction, but that was incredibly dull and plodding.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Sat 3 May, 2014 05:35 am
@farmerman,
ic. now the point is not that you don't get it, now the pont is you don't want to get it.
get it? Wink

But hee after reading your postinsg for a while I can't take them seriously anymore.

0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Sat 3 May, 2014 05:39 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Im thinking that this guy is another identity of Herald.

I think it's Gunga's Dad.
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 3 May, 2014 06:01 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
If you just sling empty accusations and continue to posture like some latter day Bishop Wilberforce,


Bloody hell fm. That's your game. Would anybody give me $10 for every empty accusation I can find you have slung about me never mind anybody else?

You are like those football commentators who explain how all the moves took place on the field with a video of the game they have been studying all evening leading up to their appearance on Match of the Day. The video and the wizard technology (for now) are simply aids to the strutting and the ridiculous sums we pay for it. The chief presenter of MotD has another job. He advertises Walker's Crisps. (Chips in American).
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Sat 3 May, 2014 06:15 am
@spendius,
don't take fm not too seriously, as you have suggested Wink
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 3 May, 2014 06:24 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
farmerman wrote:


Im thinking that this guy is another identity of Herald.


I think it's Gunga's Dad.


Pathetic!!!!

fm just did a post about slinging empty accusations. It's ******* incredible really. Multiple personalities are being flagged up. Which is a sign of having no firm foundation.

No wonder fm and Apisa fell out. Like poles repel. Neither of which are empty accusations.

fm and Apisa had a dramatic falling out. And like poles do repel.
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 3 May, 2014 06:26 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
don't take fm not too seriously, as you have suggested


There is no danger of that Q.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 09/13/2024 at 05:14:35