132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 20 Nov, 2018 11:31 pm
Yeah, bob and weave, LF, and avoid the difficult questions. Blaming your errors on spell-check is lame in itself, but you have avoided how you set yourself up. A few posts earlier, you mentioned life arising from a creator, and made a snide assumption about how I would react if that could be proven. Well, prove away. Once again, I await your evidence with breath abated.
OldGrumpy
 
  0  
Wed 21 Nov, 2018 12:19 am
@hingehead,
Quote:
@OldGrumpy,
You'd be a lot more convincing if you took a scientific approach to proving any of your bullshit. As it is you come across as a laughably deluded egoist.

I'll give you one chance to explain how transistors came about with out science.

Fail and you'll never hear from me again (nor me from you).

Happy trails.

<Finger hovers over ignore button.>


But I did! Just see my other thread on ahum 'physics'!

farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 21 Nov, 2018 12:51 am
@OldGrumpy,
you get more mileage , saying nothing than a hillbilly minister.
You creationists are a funny lot.
OldGrumpy
 
  0  
Wed 21 Nov, 2018 03:17 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
you get more mileage , saying nothing than a hillbilly minister.
You creationists are a funny lot.


You still doen't get that I am NOT a creationist.
I am only pointing out the LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.
What that has to do with creationism is beyond me.


Man , you love your black and white thinking, right?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Wed 21 Nov, 2018 01:03 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Yeah, bob and weave, LF, and avoid the difficult questions. Blaming your errors on spell-check is lame

So that's what difficult questions are in your world..

Quote:
A few posts earlier, you mentioned life arising from a creator, and made a snide assumption about how I would react if that could be proven. Well, prove away. Once again, I await your evidence with breath abated.

Not really. Here's what I actually said (in reply to your insistence that abiogenesis and evolution are totally different subjects):

"Are you saying that if we were to conclude that life had to have had an intelligent 'creator' that it would have no influence on your thoughts about evolution?"

You see, I was asking what your reaction would be, not assuming. But it seems to me that it is you who avoids the difficult questions.
hingehead
 
  1  
Wed 21 Nov, 2018 04:21 pm
@OldGrumpy,
Quote:
But I did! Just see my other thread on ahum 'physics'!

Gimme a link to the post that you think sums up your proof most succinctly - otherwise I might think your just an attention seeker (read all my posts to see why I'm right to assume that).
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 21 Nov, 2018 05:26 pm
@Leadfoot,
I'm not avoiding the question, I'm awaiting your proof. Hypothetical questions are just as lame as blaming spell-check. When you say " . . . we were to conclude . . ."--who are "we," you gotta mouse in your pocket? Conclusions without evidence are as lame as blaming spell-check and asking hypothetical questions--especially rather than discussing what is known and supported by evidence.

Provide your evidence--but I'm not really so foolish as to hold my breath.
OldGrumpy
 
  -3  
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 12:49 am
@hingehead,
Quote:
Gimme a link to the post that you think sums up your proof most succinctly - otherwise I might think your just an attention seeker (read all my posts to see why I'm right to assume that).


Do you really think I give a damn what you think about me? of course not
Think what ever you want of me.
I think of ypu as very lazy, and doing someone else doing your work.
If you are genuinely interested look it up yourself. It is really not that difficult, but my guess is that you are not really interested, you are afraid that it is true.
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 03:50 am
@OldGrumpy,
typical of "Creation science", they make up bogus fields of occurrences an then multiply fractions and then concludes "see, its statistically impossible", as if he'd done a simple card trick. Then clown Quahog makes ludicrous conclusions based on NOTHING an he wishes that his debate partners go out and find about what he is trying to say( so he is at least fishing around for others to provid the facts). meanwhile, Quahog does NO work , knows nothing and merely buys into creationist bullshit.
I understand why he flunked out of a proper school .
OldGrumpy
 
  -3  
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 04:00 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
typical of "Creation science", they make up bogus fields of occurrences an then multiply fractions and then concludes "see, its statistically impossible", as if he'd done a simple card trick. Then clown Quahog makes ludicrous conclusions based on NOTHING an he wishes that his debate partners go out and find about what he is trying to say( so he is at least fishing around for others to provid the facts). meanwhile, Quahog does NO work , knows nothing and merely buys into creationist bullshit.
I understand why he flunked out of a proper school .


what's with this gibberish and gobbledygook?

Anyway farmerwhatever.
Can you explain why YOU do BELEIVE in the evolution theory?
Or don't you have a clue yourself?
Olivier5
 
  2  
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 04:03 am
To the OP, I suspect that people resist the idea of evolution because it makes their existence look entirely contingent. It's the pain that was at the root of Camus' "absurd": the concept of a chaotic, meaningless universe conflicts with the human tendency to seek value and meaning in life; therefore we as human beings are bound to resist the idea that our lives are absurd, aka meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Camus'advice was to accept the general absurdity of the universe and of our lives as a given, while still trying to make sense of it because that's the only thing we can do.

My advice is not to assume that our lives are absurd just because we don't know (and possibly can't know) what they mean. It's not very different from Camus'; just a little more optimistic.
OldGrumpy
 
  -2  
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 04:06 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
To the OP, I suspect that people resist the idea of evolution because it makes their existence look entirely contingent. It's the pain that was at the root of Camus' "absurd": the concept of a chaotic, meaningless universe conflicts with the human tendency to seek value and meaning in life; therefore we as human beings are bound to resist the idea that our lives are absurd, aka meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

Camus'advice was to accept the general absurdity of the universe and of our lives as a given, while still trying to make sense of it because that's the only thing we can do.

My advice is not to assume that our lives are absurd just because we don't know (and possibly can't know) what they mean. It's not very different from Camus'; just a little more optimistic.


What a hope of nonsense again! I once also believed that evil-lotion was true!
However, once I just starting to look for evidence.... there was NONE

and what about ALL THE HOAXES?! telling isn't it? smelss desperate to me.
farmerman
 
  3  
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 04:41 am
@OldGrumpy,
NO DIPSHIT. YOU explain. Youve just been denying everything on a ""whatyagot"? basis , ALL without any fact or even reasoning. Youre just a Creationist megamouth with absolutely no valid claims to any position. Ive given lots of real data to serious communications. Youre just not included and I have no obligation to give you a cheap education on things about which you have no interests.
You are our resident clown who just believes that hes smarter than he is.

Ya cant deny anything till youre sure about what youre denying. You dont even know that.

Youre up BOZO

OldGrumpy
 
  -1  
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 06:06 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
NO DIPSHIT. YOU explain. Youve just been denying everything on a ""whatyagot"? basis , ALL without any fact or even reasoning. Youre just a Creationist megamouth with absolutely no valid claims to any position. Ive given lots of real data to serious communications. Youre just not included and I have no obligation to give you a cheap education on things about which you have no interests.
You are our resident clown who just believes that hes smarter than he is.

Ya cant deny anything till youre sure about what youre denying. You dont even know that.

Youre up BOZO


Dipshit? Hmmm so you have none. Why not openly and honestly telling it then, eh?!
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 06:43 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
I'm not really so foolish as to hold my breath.

Oh good, you had me worried
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 07:15 am
@OldGrumpy,
Quote:
I think of ypu as very lazy, and doing someone else doing your work.


Mate, I just want a link - if that's too hard for you I suspect you don't have much confidence in your arguments.

If you change your mind - it's CTRL C, CTRL V.
OldGrumpy
 
  -2  
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 10:12 am
@hingehead,
Quote:
Mate, I just want a link - if that's too hard for you I suspect you don't have much confidence in your arguments.

If you change your mind - it's CTRL C, CTRL V.


Mate, it's not hard, looking at threads about physics I started.
Again, I don't care what you think.
For me it is more then crystal clear that the transistor was made before quantum bollocks. Even worse, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN 'MODERN SCIENCE'
NOTHING is here because of "MODERN SCEINCE' , NOTHING.

Now maybe you are able to leave me alone and do your own work?

I know...
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 03:41 pm
The concept of quantum mechanics dates back to the 1920s. Neils Bohr won the 1922 Nobel Prize in physics for his 1913 paper on the hydrogen atomj and the QM behavior of its electron. Arthur Compton demonstrated a light quantum scattering off an electron in the following year. The transistor was invented at Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1948. Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain won the Nobel Prize for that. This guy just peddles anti-science bullshit and hare-brained conspiracy theories.
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 09:50 pm
@Setanta,
I think he knows . He has blabbered out the same BS when in his Quahog days. I think its a cry for attention alone. He s a life trapped carrying an insincere mind.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 22 Nov, 2018 09:52 pm
@OldGrumpy,
Quote:
I know...
Not at all.You know nothing of value and modern science is best without your "hypotheses"
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 07/06/2025 at 12:38:30