Why do people deny evolution?

@OldGrumpy,

Quote:

if one does not believe the standard faity (sic) tales, told by universities, one is a denier?

When it comes to C14 testing of dinosaur bones? (Especially when all the sediments from which these bones were collected test out at 66 MILLION YEARS OLD) How do you mineralize the dinosaurs bone with the same sediments as its matrix and have two different ages for the rock and the bone in which all the stratigraphic and structural cracks show that these are all of the same age?
(Ill tell ya, THE BONE the Creationists sent to the U of Georgia labs were covered with shellac that was then cleaned to a level that the lab was told that "clean up preps" had been done according to the International Commission of Stratigraphy standards. ??) THE samplers of the Creation ilk, merely lied their asses off. ALL lab science done by any Creationist Organization is FRAUDULENT and should be treated with total disdain and ridicule. (Discovery Institute does NOT engage in such crap, even they came out in ridiculing the "Fake samples" here the C14 dates only came from the residue of Shellac left on the subsamples.
Thats why.

How about the age of the earth??
Weve got really good uranium/lead207, Thorium/lead 208, Strontium 87/rubidium87, and several others that I wont spring unless Quahog tries to sound more intelligent than he is. Theres approximately 11 standard radionuclide methods and several new ones that ALL cluster around the same dates.

Biomarker chemicals are also beginning to show up from sediments that are 3.8 Billion years old. we dont need only archean fossils when we can also see archean chemicals that, like the soft tissue in a T rex, weve been able to determine that life was around at least that long.
It appears that soft dinosaur tissue doesnt support younger ages for T rex and several triceratops, it, in fact, support that specific lines of chemicals( such as isoeneretane) are stable for billions of years after forming via living respiration.

I feel that real science has a comfortable hand on these above points, so hearing complaints from a closet Creationist like Grumpster is of no consequence. My only concern is that kids who may stop by and see this stuff as a discussion point among colleagues must realize that the "churched Creationists' have an ulterior motive to control hearts and minds and to try to make believe that science's POV is disreputable , when its the Creationits who use fraud, dishonet BS and out and out lies to try to influence folks.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

bla bla bla bla bla

you still can't see the Emperor has No Clothes.

o btw it is NOT 66 MILLION YEARS, mate!

it is, to be exact, 66 MILLION YEARS, 3 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 11 hours, 20minutes and exactly 23,67 seconds!!!

anyway, how long do you think you can get away with all this circular 'thinking'.

I DO hope kids read this and see your BULLSHIT for what it is: BULLSHIT.

btw I always thought kids were free to make up their own mind, it seems they can not and have to listen to some fascist telling them what to think!

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

I rest my case, the guy's ineducable. Perhaps its a head wound

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I rest my case, the guy's ineducable. Perhaps its a head wound

ahhhhhhh, ad hominem again, poor girly?!

so, you are a quiter, eh!? Wink

Do you really 'think' we have to program children with the evil-lotion bullshit? why?

Why may they not think and find out for themselves?

I know , I know.

2 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

what brand of Creation "science" do you confess to' YEC , OEC, day date, Flying Spaghetinni? panspermia etc etc???.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

what brand of Creation "science" do you confess to' YEC , OEC, day date, Flying Spaghetinni? panspermia etc etc???.

You are not a very good reader of posting now are you, eh?!

I am NOT, I repeat I am NOT a creationst. BUT a creationist may think whatever he or she or non-binary or gender fluid etc, wants.

It seems you can't wrap your head about the fact that there are people who don't BELIEF the utter evil-lotion nonsense, and are also not a creationist.
It is a huge logical fallacy on your part , also known as black and white 'thinking". As I wrote before, that means you must be stuk because of trauma as a young child. But don't try to figure it out with a psychotherapist, or worse, a psychiatrist! There are much better alternatives. But are you going to do that. I don't hold my breath....

But, I am sorry, I am trying to be logical with a schizofrenic who is spouting his word salad, lol.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

The geological, evidence for the age of the earth is quite overwhelming. Initially some eminent Physicists, prominently including Lord Kelvin (the father of modern Thermodynamics, doubted the early findings in the late 19th century, deeming them inconsistent with the then current view of the source of the sun's energy (gravitational collapse) However advances in Physics soon proved him wrong, and established that the source of the sun's energy is the fusion of Hydrogen atoms in its core, Now both Geology and elementary Physics yield consistent estimates of the earth's age (4.2 Billion years) , and preclude any models suggesting estimates closer to those implied in the Abrahamic Bible, or the ancient texts of other religions - estimates that were clearly metaphorical, and based on then current understanding.

You appear to offer only vague and non specific responses to factual posts offered by farmerman, and conclude with sweeping, but empty, statements rejecting obvious truths. There are words for describing that: stupid and loudmouth are among them.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The geological, evidence for the age of the earth is quite overwhelming. Initially some eminent Physicists, prominently including Lord Kelvin (the father of modern Thermodynamics, doubted the early findings in the late 19th century, deeming them inconsistent with the then current view of the source of the sun's energy (gravitational collapse) However advances in Physics soon proved him wrong, and established that the source of the sun's energy is the fusion of Hydrogen atoms in its core, Now both Geology and elementary Physics yield consistent estimates of the earth's age (4.2 Billion years) , and preclude any models suggesting estimates closer to those implied in the Abrahamic Bible, or the ancient texts of other religions - estimates that were clearly metaphorical, and based on then current understanding.

You appear to offer only vague and non specific responses to factual posts offered by farmerman, and conclude with sweeping, but empty, statements rejecting obvious truths. There are words for describing that: stupid and loudmouth are among them.

ha ha ha ha ha

ahh well. oh! now it is 4.2 Billion years eh!? People make up your mind!

And what does " Abrahamic Bible, or the ancient texts of other religions " has to do with all thin non-sense?

And 'obvious truths'? ha ha ha ha ha

You also don't see the circular 'reasoning' in it all. That's all right, a bit stupid but allright.

" stupid and loudmouth are among them."

Oh, really? and if so then what?

Do you even have any clue why you belief all this bla bla million years bullshit?

Because it is sanctioned by 'science'?

pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeee g m a b!

0 Replies

@OldGrumpy,

Quote:

But, I am sorry, I am trying to be logical with a schizofrenic who is spouting his word salad, lol

so hich on of your dissociative personalities is winning??

Quote:

You are not a very good reader of posting now are you, eh?!

I am NOT, I repeat I am NOT a creationst.

I m a very astute reader of posts. You may not believe youre a Creationist but, as they say,

"By their quacks shall ye know them" Ye quackest like the bishop of Fundamentalist snake handlers

Youre easy to pick out and tag.
BUT youre such a wacky member of the conspiracy of the week club that its hard to figure out whether youre just having us on or that you need psychiatric help.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I m a very astute reader of posts

far from it, you need training!

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

"By their quacks shall ye know them" Ye quackest like the bishop of Fundamentalist snake handlers

well, if this is really so, you must be able to tell where I do that. you can't.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

Now, why would I give **** about you other than to ridicule your inane beliefs??? Wherever you worship is of no concern to me, just dont make bekieve that you know of what you speak when it comes to mot anything scientific.

(or 9/11, I believe that, besides denying weve been to the moon, youre a "truther",. ANYBODY notice a pattern with this guy?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Now, why would I give **** about you other than to ridicule your inane beliefs??? Wherever you worship is of no concern to me, just dont make bekieve that you know of what you speak when it comes to mot anything scientific.

(or 9/11, I believe that, besides denying weve been to the moon, youre a "truther",. ANYBODY notice a pattern with this guy?

ok, it's clear, you can't! Been there, done that.

btw maybe you can also give some constuctive ideas? ha ha ha ha ha

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

normally Id say, "UP YOUR DOSE". However, there's no meds for stupid. Just keep practicing your speech with your customers

"Ya wants chips w'that mate"?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

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"
….

It is not good to base one's beliefs on fallacies. So no, I don't accept that at all.

But you have several levels of misunderstanding in this short missive.

First, you don't know me well enough to know what I do and don't accept.

Second, people are far too varied in their beliefs, so "IDers/creationists" as you lump them, believe all sorts of things. I'm guessing you have heard the phrase "The Bible said it, I believe it, and that settles it." before. In your case, it's more like 'The University taught it, I learned it, and that settles it.

Thirdly, I majorly dig epigenetics. And from your POV, why wouldn't I? It illustrates the multiple levels of abstraction necessary to compress the required amount of information. These are fundamental to my arguments for ID. Again I say, you show zero understanding of where I'm coming from. The misunderstanding is not mutual. I fully understand the theory you support, the supporting evidence and why it fits. Yours is not the only one that does and it is not without its problems.

Fourthly, I don't dance since becoming a gimp.

Fifthly - wtf name did I call ya?

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Its true that I dont know you at all xcept for hat I read herein. However, I DO know that you quietly like to change your opinions regarding ID., Therefore, as I see it, youve come a long way pilgrim. Whether you know it or not, youve come very close to becoming a "evo-lutionite" .
I recall in a few of your past posts where you argued that the "Intelligent Designer" had set it up so that HIS work would be inferred as random evolution and we would be (IMHO) "duped" into accepting naturalistic ways of the rise of life on this planet. Remember that lecture??
Lately youve abandoned the pronouncement of a "HE" and have been more closely approaching science (as in your posing of "front loading" of chemical reactions that are responsible for "creating new information " that resides on genes(as in a bunch of barcodes)

Its more easy to accept epigenetics as both sources for changes to the genome as that which occurs as responses in natutal selection, as well as where no permanent changes occur to the genome yet the effect of methylation, hisones, or RNAi effects are similarly heritable.
Its a whole new world of interpretation resulting in "fast or slow" evolution . BUT, Ill say that effects of such things as biogeographical isolation events or rapid climatic changes are difficult to explain in terms of an Intelligent Design where a "HE" is involved (as was your earlier pronouncements".

Now that you seem (to me at least) to be more inquiring the role that the chemistry of amino acid and protein linkages occur, youre position is moving away from an intelligent designer and more to that of a Darwinian/ Lamarkian.

I think this is one of those times where science will be making some big changes in its own rulebook as it , sort of, welcomes Lamarck back into the fold.

I was a strict anti Lamarkian for years. It was almost a heresy to accept inheritance of acquired characteristics, until data hinted at such heritability , such that kids of obese parents tend to younger obesity, or smokers children have effects several generations after a great grandparent and subsequent generations became non-smokers.

That, and the chemical makeups of biomarkers in sediments tend to be varying through time (in response to environmental changes or even extinction events), but so far, no chemical REPEAT of exactly the same biomarkers had been reported.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

In your case, it's more like 'The University taught it, I learned it, and that settles it.

This is sorta name-calling but all I can say is that in order to correct your (and Grumpy's way of looking at our "ossified minds"

The U taught me several ways to investigate it.
I investigate it daily.
Ive found new ways to investigate it that work real well but they stomp over methods (A,B, C or D).
Ive changed our interpretation a bit by adding method E and disreputing method A (or a lot)

Theres very littel settled science really. Maybe some methodologies like ways of recording physical /chemical data ever since weve gone from analog to quantum digital methods.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

It is not good to base one's beliefs on fallacies. So no, I don't accept that at all

I mentioned this as a fact that I looked up in my ID post log. You did, in the early dys of your visits , impune science for "creating life from non life and you did accept the concept of life being too complex to have gone without a designer"
But thats neither here nor there, growth in science means to not hold on to your beliefs (and theories) too hard and question your own biass frequently.
I think youre actually beginning to do that. Never to old

1 Reply

I have always thought leadfoot had a better mind than most creationists who have posted here.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

That's not exactly hard.

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know