Why do people deny evolution?

your still very funny

let's take one of your 'gurus': Charles Darwin
( how funny you use this name 'guru' now, it is hliarious)

Now found out who were in the "Lunar Society"

then add two and two.

Good luck.

strange how you seem want to se my 'motivation'

don't you think?

and its a lot of black and white thinking you are doing

just buy the book, but it will make you angry....at first

No, the book isn't making me angry. No reason for it to do so. I am asking questions that the book raises and you don't seem to be able to answer them.

you are implying all the time that I am not able to this or that,

You just don;t understand

and yes the book will make you angry, sure, because it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution can't exist. it is an i m p os s i b l i t y.

in other words;

you have been lied to all your school years, and university years.


hurts, right?

Then why won't you discuss the book? I have asked you a question raised by Spetner. You can't even give me a simple answer?

which book are you talking about? I said already IVE RED SAFARTIS STUFF and many of his works, because the religious right is always attempting to impose its worldview into an already bleeding science curriculum of our public schools. When politics has stuck its ugly head into what must remain objective "Sciemtific method" based material, much of these self pronouncuing ICR guys merely want their place back.
The religious had full control of public schools until after the SCopes Trial, and most science programs were (LIke the Book "CIVIL BIOLOGY"), were full of error, were not vetted by scientists, only clergy, ere full of RACIST aand Indoctrintional quasi religious claptrap. ALL public and parochial schools had no direction about what science methods should be taught so it was pretty much chaos and people were harmed for professing evolutionary thinking. When it became so obvious that the tide of evidence could not be avoided and several states attempted to maintain control over kids minds especially in science and history. These states established laws that were clearly in violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. SO a long bunch of cases starting in Tennessee and continuing through the several states into the 50's Arkansas and Kansas 60's and then the late 80's based upon a landmark case that was supported by many dignitaries in medicine and science, The US Suprem Court found against the State of Louisiana in the famous Edwards v Aguillard case that "Scientific Creationism" is a religious worldview and is Not standard science. It is therefore not protected under the Constitution especially the "establishment Clause "of the 1st Amendment. The Creationists , undeterred, merely changed their title from "Scientific Creation LLC" to "Intelligent Design Inc". Consequently after another 20 years of bullshit hassle by the fundamental and mostly right wing deniers of science, a case was adjudicated in PA Fed District Court that found that "Intelligent Desing" is merely Creationism with a lab coat. It too is religion posing as science.

So all those books of and by these Creationists, don't really make me ngry. Its a war and losing ones temper doesn't amount to anything. Weve been fairly successful at stomping the mindless Creationist BS from schools that receive public money (this includes Charter schools in PA because these schools receive half their allotments of per student assessment)
HAving schools be under the microscope is whats needed for a long time to come. Were not doing a good job by our kids and Creationism thinking posing as science has taken a lot of valuable time from fixing the core problems of schools.

All these books have been debunked by professionals , Im not sharing that info unless no specific cases are under review in which several of these are or may become "exhibits" Let me just say that:
An arithmetic analysis of "Why evolution is impossible" is an impossibility as a construct, because it starts with a conclusion and then merely hunts for the values that will fit into any statistical expansion that will make your needed answer. That's BS because,, since ALL evolution is not INFINITE the chances of occurrence are unity, and with each condition that expresses itself, sequential expressions are then "clipped off".This making the number of possibilities lesser and lesser.

I saw you are going on about bad education. In part I agree, but theres a reason that's waaay less simplistic than you conjur. Anti science has always been in the drivers seat and much of human history the sciences have suffered under the priests who called the "heresy" shots.
Even Marism was a state religion that looked at evolution and declared it "Bourgeois ' and not for us Soviets.

To speak of Charles Darwin.

After Darwin had slogged himself and his dear Emma silly for half a lifetime he graduated to a study of the prototype of the tube with a hole at each end and discovered how similar they are to ladies of fashion and renown.

Don't you think, fm, that it is understandable that this distressing aspect of science should have caused some sensitive folks to seek for another explanation more fitting to the dignity of the superior sex.?

Darwin found that there are 53,767 earthworms per acre of decent agricultural land and that they have existed in their present form for hundreds of millions of years. It struck me, fm, that the upshot must mean that the whole soil of the earth is ex-earthworm **** and that the possibility must exist that all other life forms are simply intelligently designed by earthworms for the sole purpose of saving them from eating neat earthworm **** and that the process is self-sustaining.

You must have a position on a hypothesis like that if it is entertainment you seek.

What a terrible thing it must be to be "not vetted by scientists". One might feel unfulfilled.

Im sorry, earthworms had been scoured out of the Appalachian North by the Pleistocene glaciers so I don't have the inclination to consider worm **** as do you. Maybe Quahog will join you since hes a (limited) vocabulary, in search of a topic.

I will include Darwin s a guru in evolutionary science because he, as a field experienced geologist and researcher in evolution had speny over 25 years researching and developing his theory which, has been called the "greatest idea of the second millennium."
Unlike your guru Johny Sarfati (call me a scientist chess player) who has NEVER, EVER worked a day in evolutionary research. Writing a book, mostly that which was pulled out of his rectum with no idea in hell what his area of expertise was gonna be from page to page. Johny s a science fraud who preaches to his choir of true believers.

Youre welcome to him and perhaps theres where your obtuseness arises. You need to be spoon fed .
Sarfati has been on the "cutting edge" of trying to rekindle teaching of Creationist bullshit with the idea of turning another court case in favor of the IDers.

It wont happen in District 3, that ship has already sailed for them.

I notice you are quiet and without speech about the history of your "pals"

well, to be fair, you have only listened to the mainstream fairy tale.

maybe it is time to do some reaserch yourself now, instead of believing this crap?

Be fair now, you only believe this Darwin stuff because you were raised with it!
it is very simply one big lie.

that's difficult to digest,I understand, but it is.

btw never trust a gure! lol

That was the question I asked you fm. Why have you made no attempt to answer it? It does go to the core of why people deny evolution.

Doesn't a pure scientific approach geld an educated gentleman?

I don't think we should go into the history of Darwin too closely but I am up for it if you are.

Ive probablyread mor Creationist trash than you. The trubble with them is that theres never anything new until someone discovers a new species or a geological piece of evidence or a pattern in a genome of a living creature.
There is a HUGE difference between "reqding everything" and REASONING as to which is fact.

I can recall when the ICR people had announced the discovery of a fossil human being hld in the grip of a fossil carnosaur ---Course it was a FAKKE

Creationists have found that C14 shows that dinosaurs lived only 20000 years ago- FRAUD because "new" carbon from CO3 leaching and LACQUER (used for bone coatings) had screwed up the readings

Creationists reported that "human footprints" were found in the Paluxy Formation of TExas (These footprints were found along side dinosaur tracks. -FAKE, a couple of entreprenurs had carved the footprints by modifying a few dinosaur tracks

Fossil human remains found in the carboniferous of Pa.-FAKE, the bones were apparently the bones of a miner killed by a rockfall in the 1800's and had been coatsed with marcasite.

"Blood clotting " requires an irreproducibly complex stream of enzymes and proteins (26 in a row and this was claimed as "proof of a designer")
It turns out that several lower animals have the SAME enzyme stream with the exception of one or two less complex than humans-

ALL " science experiments" proposed by Creationists have been debunked and show that here is a movement that will stoop to any means to "FAKE" their needed religious worldview.

Im not saying that science has its nose cean but we have so-far, been able to HOUSE CLEAN anything that shows up as somewhat dubious (like the fossil bird and reptile hybrid from the fossil beds of Liao Ning. It took several years but a paleontologist from the Museum of Nat History spent time on uncovering the fake that was perped by an unscrupulous fossil dealer.

These stories re what make watching Creationism self destructall on its own.


The US SUpreme Court agrees with me, what've you got??

As usual spendi, your mind seems more distracted by ladies underwear. MAybe you should change brands before you get picked up as a SKI
That was the question I asked you fm. Why have you made no attempt to answer it?SKIVOSA

What the hell. After all, I believe it was I who introdeuced you to Desmond and Moore these many years ago. I think the title of their book says it ALL about Darwin. SO (make sure you include Peckham along with Dand M for your "cherry picked extractions)

I always enjoy when you attempt to say something pithy by engaging in quote mining. Ill get back to you guys for sure.

Rubbish. You're MYOEPs. Again. I had a copy of D&M many years before I came on A2K. And had read it twice. And once since my arrival here. I know more about Darwin and evolution that you lot put together. And then some. And I know nowhere near enough to what I ought to. Money always came first for me because that was the route to ladies in various modes of undress.

And can't you even get the "&" right. It's on the front cover. "&". Got it? Not "and". The book is at my elbow. I don't think you have read it. I don't think you can read anything because your perception is twisted all out of shape by your partisan stance.

You have no inclination to think carefully about Charlie getting on board Emma in the later years as we know he did. Hopefully with his nightshirt only lifted up enough to facilitate the operation. (Poor Emma--one has to feel sorry for the lass). I'll maybe look the dates up and find some photographs contemporary with them. You will gloss over such facts.

As you will with five years away from Shropshire gals. You would rather be up the cliffs astounded at finding sea-shells as the ancients had done. One might have thought that a botanist in his prime might have a keen interest in the Venus fly-trap and the mantis rather than bloody finches.

AHHHH, I can always count on spendi to turn a biography into a Victorian bodice ripper. How about the biography of Emma? you always seem to denigrate those who support and maintain .

Was it Emma who reminded Charles of his lack of acknowledgements on Ed 1? and was it not she , along with Dr Gould, who recconded that he remedy this apparent oversight.

PS, as for the ampersand, even though my spelling is atrocious, I dislike "text speak". That is lazy speak.

Also, it appears that you've missed all the additional "Stuffing" that Morris PEckham had provided in doing his variora of the many editions of "Origins..."
His opinions are, though entertaining just like those of Desmond AND Moore, also not to be accepted at full face value.
Remember D and M had many looney personal ideas that squeeze through their attempt at full frontal scholarship.


Ive finished another biography (the recent one of Norman Rockwell) in which the authors primary point seemed only to be that Rockwell was a closet homosexual. SO much great scholarship lost to silly tabloid points.

fossils?? having a laugh now!

it's just wishfull thinking on your part and you just don't see it.