107
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2019 03:07 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
It's a pretty far reach to claim that something is beyond "what nature could not do on its own" You simply don't know everything nature has done.

Just remember that everything you think nature has done is an assumption.

You nor anyone else has ever seen the events that caused what you are calling evolution. It is only a narrative that would appear to fit what we see IF macro evolution is a real thing. Those spouting that evolution is 'proven fact' simply show their ignorance of what science is.

Unless you or farmer can show some actual familiarity with what that Nobel was for, there is no use discussing it. Farmer saying that she simply 'showed that nature causes evolution' is simply laughable. I thought that was already accepted 'fact' according to the story you guy like to spout.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2019 03:51 pm
@Leadfoot,
You are the one demonstrating your ignorance. You show time and again that you do not understand the scientific method, and that you do not understand the mechanism of natural selection. I see that you have also studiously ignored George's point that whatever man does is natural because man is a part of nature.

Tell me, Mr. Ignorance of what Science Is, what scientific evidence can you provide for your magic sky daddy superstition, and your "intelligenct design" superstition?
MadJW
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2019 06:08 pm
@Lordyaswas,
"Why do people deny evolution?"

Because they know coprolite when they see it....
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2019 06:48 pm
@Setanta,
He missed the entire point on the methodology that Arnold used, Trial and error.

0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2019 07:47 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
I see that you have also studiously ignored George's point that whatever man does is natural because man is a part of nature.

Ignored because it ignores the obvious answer - that the intelligence behind this design can also be said to be part of nature.
Happy now?

Quote:
Tell me, Mr. Ignorance of what Science Is, what scientific evidence can you provide for your magic sky daddy superstition, and your "intelligenct design" superstition?

I can provide considerably more than science has for many of its own sky daddies. You know, like 95+% of the universe is made of invisible stuff and it's being torn apart by invisible energy that we can't detect in any way other than by the way it interacts with 'normal matter'. Not that I blame you for believing it, the evidence for it (albeit indirect) is as real as the evidence for ID.
But then there are the infinite (Ha!) multiverses necessary to make this one an accident, and the incredible accident than we never observed or reproduced (you know, like in science) that made life from rocks. That last one requires faith without evidence the likes of which can't be found in any church.
MadJW
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2019 08:57 am
@Leadfoot,
Science USED to say Life came ONLY from Life.
Have they backtracked?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2019 09:54 am
@MadJW,
MadJW wrote:

Science USED to say


Lots of stuff which is now believed to be untrue. That's what science is, it's not dogma set in stone.

Quote:
Since scientific knowledge is still growing by a factor of ten every 50 years, it should not be surprising that lots of facts people learned in school and universities have been overturned and are now out of date. But at what rate do former facts disappear? Arbesman applies the concept of half-life, the time required for half the atoms of a given amount of a radioactive substance to disintegrate, to the dissolution of facts. For example, the half-life of the radioactive isotope strontium-90 is just over 29 years. Applying the concept of half-life to facts, Arbesman cites research that looked into the decay in the truth of clinical knowledge about cirrhosis and hepatitis. “The half-life of truth was 45 years,” reported the researchers.

In other words, half of what physicians thought they knew about liver diseases was wrong or obsolete 45 years later. As interesting and persuasive as this example is, Arbesman’s book would have been strengthened by more instances drawn from the scientific literature.


https://reason.com/archives/2012/10/02/half-of-the-facts-you-know-are-probably<br />
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2019 10:58 am
@MadJW,
MadJW wrote:

Science USED to say Life came ONLY from Life.
Have they backtracked?

There's no clear line delineating living from non-living chemistry at the simplest level. Mostly what distinguishes living from non-living activity is the level of complexity and organization.

The more complex and organized naturally-formed systems become, the harder it is for them to emerge from scratch, so there has to be some method of reproducing them before entropy breaks them down to the point of dying.

So science used to define life in terms of reproduction as one of the criteria, but the implication of that, i.e. that life can't spawn from non-living activity, fails to explain the crossing over between simple primordial activity that was non-living by our standards today and the complex, organized natural systems we can easily recognize as life.
0 Replies
 
OldGrumpy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2019 12:31 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Lots of stuff which is now believed to be untrue. That's what science is, it's not dogma set in stone.


ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

'science' is FILLED with DOGMA'S!!

0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2019 12:37 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote: sentana
Quote:
Tell me, Mr. Ignorance of what Science Is, what scientific evidence can you provide for your magic sky daddy superstition, and your "intelligenct design" superstition?


I
Quote:
can provide considerably more than science has for many of its own sky daddies.
Could we use "spaghetti monster" or "universal lottery winner" here. Sky Daddy implies a personal designer with intelligence and winning at some game of chance is closer. But then where did the game come from? Oh wait. I know. . . Another "mega lottery". But where did that lottery come from etec. . . Oh I guess you provided that answer the infinite supply of lottery games.
Quote:
But then there are the infinite (Ha!) multiverses necessary to make this one an accident, and the incredible accident than we never observed or reproduced (you know, like in science) that made life from rocks. That last one requires faith without evidence the likes of which can't be found in any church.


Still , please don't dignify sentana's answer by instilling person hood on the multiverse by your choice of words. Next thing you know they'll run with that and start implying that intelligence just popped out of one of the multiverses (probably ours) as a result of one of the mega lottery wins and grant it some kind of personal status and suggest we need to start cooperating with it. If they do give it person hood, I have a good name for it --- "The Morning Star".
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2019 05:28 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:

Just remember that everything you think nature has done is an assumption
. Naahh. Assumptions are merely something we compare against in order to establish what really works. Its a valid engineering methodology.

Everything I knoow of that is included within the theory of evolution have been concluded based on repeatable evidence and experiment. Even these are constantly tested against new global facts to see whether the system still is as "monolithic" or correct as originally established.

Like the reemersion of some Lamarkian statements. They dont renounce evolution, they seem to explain things that are clearly evidenced , like heritability of "bad habits".

This is quite unlike Creation/ID which seems to defy all science findings and ,instead, asserts a stubborn unchanging belief system.

Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2019 09:06 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Since scientific knowledge is still growing by a factor of ten every 50 years, it should not be surprising that lots of facts people learned in school and universities have been overturned and are now out of date.

That's all fine and good izzy, but you know damned well that you could not count the times when 'Evolution' has been called "Fact" and "Settled Science" and is no longer in question. And if you do question it the response is not as you have said above, people who question this 'science' are called 'science deniers' or 'delusional' or 'carried away with their wishful thinking about happily ever after'.

If you can be objective about this subject, that's great. But don't pretend that the rest of this gang is.


Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2019 09:12 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
I have a good name for it --- "The Morning Star".

He too was created.

Really, I don't care how they refer to him, Him or me, they obviously don't know any of us.

On second thought, they might have made an acquaintance with him.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2019 09:18 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Everything I knoow of that is included within the theory of evolution have been concluded based on repeatable evidence and experiment.

Really. I gave you more credit than that.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2019 09:25 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
you could not count the times when 'Evolution' has been called "Fact" and "Settled Science" and is no longer in question
Thats often a well used proposition by IDers. Perhaps youd like to bring one or more up and we can discuss whatever happened. Were they just abandoned (like pre continentl drift) for a "better explantion based upon more modern technology?? Or were they reall just slavish adherence to outmoded theorems ??


Ill bet that, ere you to name one of these "Settled science" issues, wed be able to see that science had not ABANDONED THEM without careful valuation and experimentation.


Science is waay more flexible than is the Creation/ID worldview. Were evidence ever available available about an external intelligence (like pnspermia) or (pre programming), science would hve NO problem re adjusting. Its you guys who are bound to a worldview that has incredulity as its base.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2019 09:28 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
people who question this 'science' are called 'science deniers'
So you think that people who believe the world is less than 100 K years old, or believe that dinosaurs can be dated using C14, or that "irreducible complexity" is a fact are NOT science deniers
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2019 09:30 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Really. I gave you more credit than that.
What you "give me" doesnt kep me wake. But if youve got a few examples . try to present them and Ill tell you where we differ about the value of circumstantial evidence (one of the biggest arguments you guys like to foist , in that "noone has seen this happen"

0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2019 09:36 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Leadfoot Quote:
"you could not count the times when 'Evolution' has been called "Fact" and "Settled Science" and is no longer in question"

farmer replied:
Thats often a well used proposition by IDers.

What is this? Projection?

I need to learn more about pop psychology around here.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2019 09:46 am
@Leadfoot,
heres me---lets discuss it

heres you---tappity tap tappity tap tippy tippy tap tap.(To da music he dances) Call da farmer some names and quickly accuse him of insulting you"

I believe this as a fact . You dont accept that the IDers /creationists base their entire belief on "Lifes too complex to have arisen without a design/build scheme"

i think all the new discoveries looming around epigenetics are giving you guys a headache cause Im waiting for the simpleassed "gungasnale version " with some scientific "cartoons"
OldGrumpy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2019 12:26 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
So you think that people who believe the world is less than 100 K years old, or believe that dinosaurs can be dated using C14, or that "irreducible complexity" is a fact are NOT science deniers


wow! so if you don't go along with the non-sense of the establishment you are a 'science-denier' , lol, what a title btw! hmmmm looks a bit like holocaust-- well you get my drift. The term is probaly invented by a PR machine bureau, lol

Ah well, if one does not believe the standard faity tales, told by universities, one is a denier? of what? certainly not facts! of which universities have very little.
One must be really really really very idotic, crazy and borderline schizofrenic to attend something like a university, right?
Sometimes people tell me they have one or more phd's and alsmost always I burst in an enrmous laugh and then they look at me with their stupid eyes and have no clue why I laugh. And when they ask me I tell them they have been so enormously stupid to pay for their own brainwashing. Do they 'get that'? Of course not! which proves my whole point! lol
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/22/2019 at 09:23:18