Why do people deny evolution?

see what I mean?? Im now a product of an indoctrination camp. Theres some well thought out analysis.

well, you can mock it all you want, but you are, as I was once.
Enough documented proof of it.

But my guess is you want to stay in denial, yes? And you know eh, Denial is not only a river in egypt!

Trouble with your "facts" is that they are several ecades old. Since the early 90's the entire "Cambrian Explosion" phrase has been seen to have specific limits mostly since evidence of earlier "complex" phyla take us waay back into the pre Cambrian. I know this is hard to accept but if you can call 20 to 40 million years an "Explosion" maybe 50 to 70 my less violent.

I know you go off pouting each time you shoot at my stuff.There are some really good papaers and texts about life in the pre Cambrian and, lets not forget Ros' point nthat achieving "complexity" of life through billions of years of slow volution to set the stage for the first appearnaces of Aragonite shells and Segmented bodies doesnt appar so "Explosive'

Remember the concept of the "Explosion itself" was never an issue of occuring in a n instant of time. It was based upon a dilemma that Darwin had come up against. He saw from sediments that he took as "Pre Cambrian " (actually Silurian in his unerstandings of the stratigraphic record) , that the early sediments that he saw in England he and other scientists later saw no evidence of life. That all changed in the mid 20th century (and perhaps as early as 1920), when several location loaded with many exampls of complx forms of life were discovered in Labrador ,Greenland.Australia,NW Canada and Alaska, Minnesota, Russia and lately, the Doushantuo of China.
Youve, in the past, tried to limit the wonderfulness of these forms by calling them "bags of glop: or something like that. You never bothered to look at what evidence of complexity we see in just the additional geologic time from the Tonitian to the end of the Ediacaran (a new series of trms that replaced VENDIAN back in the 1980's). This takes us back to the Cryogenian (which is a time interval of almost 100 million years-at least). The terminal Cryogenian is now famous for finding fossil emvryos of some form of more complwx life , and ALSO, just at the beginning of the Tonitian, scienists have found fossil TRACKS in very fine sediments . SO, weve got evidence of complex "bags of glop" whove seveloped three kind of symmetry AND, the ability to WALK on the bottom.

Ya see, in the very few years while the Creationists have been clinging to the"God did it-and really fast one Cambrian Afternoon" -science has been quietly collecting and adding to our storehouse of pre Cambrian life.
I recently saw in a Paleo journal that a variety of Spriggina. May actually be a sessile life form sporting an early notochord.(This will take all kinds of evidence to convince to convince us skeptics and its just a paleo bed-time story now.)

But, of course, you have all the answers and Im just a fool.

I alwasy laugh my socks off when I read this kind of very idiotic information.
100 million years- at least! ha ha ha ha ha

sure 'science' tells you, right?


lol

well, whats your evidence besides your " most highly-educated bray"?? Ill wager a farthing that you have no idea about what most of the rest of us are even talking about, RIGHT?

I alwso saw that, from the 2005 GSA conference, Spriggina was looked at using a microtome and thin section microscopy and was proposed to be an early trilobitoid.

WHO KNOWS??

do you know what I mean with indoctrination camps? I really think you have no idea what I am talking about. figures.

youre probably correct. I have no idea about what youre all pissed off about ,(but I really dont give a **** about problems that you have with your career options).

He writes of "documented proof," but he never produces any of the documentation. You're just feeding a troll.

pissed off? Hmm you have no clue indeed.

Maybe do some reseacrh into the history of schooling and start opening your eyes.

The theory itself does seem to fit the evidence in many cases. But as Darwin himself pointed out, if changes are anything but gradual, the theory falls into question. The theory has been modified quite a bit since his day in order to make it fit. That is how we get to today's 'Punctuated Equilibrium' version of Darwin's Theory. You know, it's gradual except when it's not.


I believe that mutation and natural selection are real. I don't believe they explain the progression from first cell to man.


True, I think abiogenesis is the biggest hurtle for advocates of 'all natural' formation and development of life to explain. And I think it's silly to think the two subjects are not related. Setanta in particular seems to get upset at any suggestion that they are. I'll ask you the same question I asked him - If it were shown that an intelligence had to have been involved in the design of organic life, would it affect your opinion on whether it was also involved in its evolution?

Just looking at the scientific facts, I could not convince myself that a DNA based lifeform could arise naturally from the known forces of physics, no matter if my very life depended on it. No theological factors are involved here, this is just my reasoned conclusion at this time.

Does that affect whether I think an intelligence was behind the progression of that life? I can't conceive of any reason why it wouldn't. Especially when that fits a lot of the evidence as well.

If this was the case, the intelligence in question would then be identified, and we could potentially ask that intelligence to explain it all to us, assuming it is still alive.

I don't think that logically follows.
For example, if we find signs of intelligent life on some distant planet, a cell phone/whatever, we would immediately know it had an intelligent source, but we would not know whether 'they' were dead or just left the planet. I would imagine we'd be curious enough to investigate further.

Of course it would. The demonstrated involvement of a super-intelligence with magical skills/technology directly intervening in physical processes would change everything. How could it not. We wouldn't be able to trust our own perceptions understanding anymore. But that's not what people mean when they point out that "Abiogenesis and Biological Evolution" are two different things. They are making an entirely different point, which you either don't see, or are intentionally conflating with your non sequitur.

So far, there is absolutely nothing in the realm of physical evidence or logical deduction which even remotely indicates the involvement of a grand "intelligence" in the natural world. And no matter how uncomfortable you are with nature just being nature, or how much your lack of understanding of the process convinces you that it just couldn't happen, it simply doesn't imply that an intelligence needs to be involved.

When you come up with evidence to support your conjecture I'll listen. Until then you are just another priest asking us to trust and believe. And sorry, not interested in that.

Well you keep providing evidence that there is a tremendous amount of information in DNA and in the fossil record. Most of us agree with that. I suspect even old grumpy agrees with that.

The thing that you provided very little evidence for (as a matter of fact no evidence) is when it comes to The introduction of new information correctly for, Abiogenisis, macro evolution and the creation of matter to even occur.

The reason you cannot provide evidence is because those are three very complex systems That solve very different problems. And, it took intelligence to organize the information to initiate quantum mechanics. Then it took intelligence to initiate life. Then it took intelligence to make the big jumps in evolution like Eye sight, sexual reproduction and flight.

The only evidence you provided is that those three systems combined are capable of doing amazing things but you can never provided evidence of where those three systems and the information that initiated them came from.

The explanation for the creation of matter and the creation of life is going to require explanation that uses quantum mechanics and we do not understand that well enough yet. ( at least mainstream science doesnt)

And since, intelligence is going to be required to provide the order, intelligwnce and its origins need to be discussed and understood by maistream science also. (And, I will argue that intelligentlce does not need physical matter to exist and there is a lot of evidence supporting that statement)

So, I would like an honest answer to this question. if the answer is not completely physical can science look for it?

Basically I am saying you have not overcome the problem of irreducible complexity. You have provided evidence that the system is very complex and can do a lot of things. But you have provided no evidence that Darwinian evolution through natural selection is capable of putting the new correct information in the system sequence from random sources of new evidence.

Inside in the fossil record as evidence that he can't do it as white as old grumpy all upset. You were citing evidence that it happened you're not citing evidence how.

If mainstream science is not biased against intelligent design then why all the labels of loony to describe ideas that are more logical than the purely random introduction of information. That is an unfair tactic to end the discussion by classifying the other persons argument as not worth talking about.

Once again if the answer is not physical can science look for it?

In such a scenario, we would find much more than just one single cellphone. An entire civilization cannot vanish and leave behind just one cellphone. We would be able to retrieve records by the millions. I imagine that after a few years of study the lives of these dudes would be quite familiar to us.

So I repeat: if we can prove that life was designed, it means we can rule out one particular potential 'designer': hazard. The only way to do that would be to identify who the real designer was, and then we can just ask him how he did it (or dig into his files if he's now dead).

In other words, I'll believe in Intelligent Design the day they identify the designer and he confesses to it. Until then, spare me the conjectures.

The evidence is the fact that," we have never witnessed matter being ordered into information without an author or, a complex pre-existing system that was designed to order that matter into information by an author that is to ancient to identify. "

Can you provide an example of this ordering of information without an intelligent author or a pre-existing system (that is so complex it requires an intelligent author) to do it itself?

Besides Jesus Christ and satan, has anyone else ( that existed in recorded history) claimed to have created the universe and everything in it and then, stepped into the universe (during recorded history) to tell us that he did it for a purpose?

This question is for Cicerone also.

explain fullywhat you mean by "new information". I have my own ideas and have tried to discuss it with many of you guys (evolution is a two part process, production of variability, coupled with selection), WHAT do you think it means??