Why do people deny evolution?

@brianjakub,

Don't try to discuss with a deeply mind-controlled man, like fm. It really is of no use. Because of his programming he can't get his head around this all.
He is also been dumbed down.
Why trying?

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

I like him. He is intelligent. I learn a lot. I hope he learns something. I hope you learn something.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I really dont understand what you mean by "modelling". I ve got maybe 30 + years of expperience at math modelling of hydrologic systems for mining systems (FE, FD or hybrid ). NOONE that I know has ever done designing from a model.

A mathematical model is not a model that can fully explain physical reality. I am talking about real physical models. You can print out all the equations you want predicting the air pressures on different parts of an airplane but, they are almost meaningless unless you know what the plane looks like.

Similarly you cannot model how the random introduction of new information into the genome to create completely new bodily functions (like sexual reproduction) without physically understanding and observing it happening. Since it takes millions of years you can't speculate it happened randomly without intelligent guidance unless you observe something similar happening on a smaller scale (And micro evolution within a species, which is really selective breeding, does not count as an observation of a similar model because that has never yielded new function systems like sexual reproduction.)

Quote:

NOONE that I know has ever done designing from a model. Its always a "best guess" based upon someones biases drawn from some limited batch of information.

I am talking about a physical model not a mathematical one. Like a human causing a car to evolve from a model T to a ford mustang is modeling of evolution by intelligent introduction of new information.

Quote:

I think you should talk to some folks experienced in math models to give you advice as to how and hell you feel that you even have enough known values to propose doing a model in the first place. You would, I submit, hve to "make up" most of your constants and variables. (Let alone the entire field equations).

I think we need to build physical models not mathematical ones.

Quote:

Thats the thing about you entreating "modelling" as support for ID. your "model" becomes your evidence because the rest of it has NO evidence upon which to base your model. Am I understood? I think that anyone who comes up with an ID model, is peddling bullshit by the carload.

Humans are the only physical things that we know of that can currently model creative intelligence causing evolution to higher complexity. Darwinian evolution does not have a model beyond slective breeding and that is not macroevolution.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Discovery Institute is protected by the Constitution s is anyone else POV. You just seem to want to deny the findings o the courts about taching a state religion in public schools. TRY TO KEEP UP or just quit trying to converse about things you have little knowledge or interest in.

Well neither The Discovery Institute, leadfoot nor I are telling anyone what church they have to go to. Nor are we telling people they can't present opposing points of view. Only Judge Jones did that. And he did that because DI used a lot of bible and theology and not enough science and philosophy. I am trying to correct that in my presentations and appears Leadfoot has succeeded. So can we now admit that there is a way to introduce ID under the parameters set by Dover?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I like him. He is intelligent. I learn a lot. I hope he learns something. I hope you learn something.

intelligent? How did you figure that one out? I say for sure he isn't. Just because of his indoctrination. But maybe he impresses you with his postings?
I am sorry to say, but I think he is very cheap.

1 Reply

@OldGrumpy,

I disagree. farmer is intelligent. He just uses a different interpretation of the data than I do. I guarantee that someday he will understand the right interpretation. I hope sooner rather than later. Don't you?

1 Reply

Why do people deny evolution?

Mainly because evolution is a bunch of bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=WdqYPjA9VxA

1 Reply

To the evolutionist, a neighbor is not a fellow child of God, he is a meat byproduct of stochastic processes. That was the most basic idea behind communism, Nazism, and the various eugenics programs of the past two centuries. Evolution is not ordinary bullshit, it is a spectacularly dangerous and virulent flavor of bullshit. Most stupid ideas and ideologies are not worth the effort to try to rid the world of and exterminate; evolution IS worth that effort.

0 Replies

In the world view of the evolutionist, survival of the fittest is the only moral law in nature. and he who dies with the most offspring is the winner. That is the moral system of the evolutionite. That also says that the two primary role models for evolosers are the serial rapist and the welfare mother, Paul Bernardo and Mrs. Williams.

1 Reply

https://www.apnews.com/7e7881db4660a1b3b5c00c2a00fa8663

Quote:

TAMFORD, Conn. (AP) _ A defiant welfare mother of 14 children on Wednesday told a television studio audience and the mayor who brought her to prominence ″if I could have 14 more, I would have 14 more.″

Defending her right to have children, Jacqueline Williams, 35, of Washington, D.C. told Washington Mayor Marion Barry Jr. and a sometimes hostile ″Donahue″ audience that he and those who criticize her owe her an apology.

Mrs. Williams was drawn into the spotlight last April when Barry, during a news conference, cited her as an example of poor people who rely too much on city government services...

That is an understatement. Listening to Barry and Williams getting into it on the radio and assuming you did not know what you were hearing, could easily have thought you were listening to David Duke or the grand imperial wizard of the Klan of the United States. Again, Williams was simply trying to be one of evolutionism's success stories.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Quote:
Nor are we telling people they can't present opposing points of view. Only Judge Jones did that. And he did that because DI used a lot of bible and theology and not enough science and philosophy.

Either you have a gross misunderstanding of what Judge Jones ruling says or you are being willfully obtuse about it. Pick one.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I disagree. farmer is intelligent. He just uses a different interpretation of the data than I do. I guarantee that someday he will understand the right interpretation. I hope sooner rather than later. Don't you?

Nope, as I have written before, he is dumbed down by the system and can't see that.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

It is interesting to watch religious extremists Who embrace evolutionism try to explain how complex life like bacteria can be created in a mere chemical soup, or how cows turn into whales....

But yes, morality is a different subject, which is even more interesting to listen to them attempting to explain how we should behave huh?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k
You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals, so let’s do it like they do on the discovery channel

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Either you have a gross misunderstanding of what Judge Jones ruling says or you are being willfully obtuse about it. Pick one.

I will pick gross misunderstanding because I don't think Judge Jones understands two important points:

1. The precedence this sets in stifling debate (in academia and the community in general) over an issue that historically was a central reason to the founding of our nation and the constitution.

2. The historical importance in developing cohesion in local communities as people rallied together in support of like minded values and ethics.

I think Judge Jones went too far because, he unnecessarily stifled the debate that has already started in academia, by some who are introducing consciousness (maybe even intelligence) into the scientific and philosophical discussion of the origins and evolution of matter and life. I say it was unnecessary because introducing some sort of consciousness or Intelligence as a source behind the information we are observing as nature is a logical alternative explanation. Which, if done in a way that was historically considered constitutional (before his radical decision changed what the founders had originally intended what the constitution to mean), is similar to asking for voluntary participation in the recital of "the pledge of allegiance", celebrating "traditional religious holidays", and saying a general prayer to the "local communities generally accepted version of some pantheistic or mono theistic God" which does nothing more than develop community fellowship in a way similar to a pep rally for the local high school football team.

Now, I can't hardly get "You" to discuss it (let alone academia) in a meaningful way, because of some fear that it might lead to some "Roman Catholic" or "Fundamental Evangelical" version of Sharia Law.

I don't think this unfounded fear justifies the stifling of the debate from the federal level, and should have been left to state or locally elected officials who are more in tune to local norms and 'changes in science and the culture' (And the changes are coming because scientists are introducing philosophical debates into the discussion already. Just look at all the videos Fil is posting about it. https://able2know.org/topic/384507-1 ). Do you think its justified?

1 Reply

"Our?" Do you allege that you are an American? For someone who claims to be an American, your English sucks. I'll go with willful obfuscation, given that you've taken FM's remark, and are attempting to suggest that the "misunderstanding" is on the part of Judge Jones. Kindly enlighten us as to what part of the constitution is violated. If you allege that the first amendment is infringed, that will be bullshit because no one stops you from puking up your idiot ID bullsh*t, you just can't teach as science, because it ain't science.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Science requires a philosophical interpretation. It is a philosophical interpretation of the intormation contained in the universe he is outlawing.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

You have not answered the question of whether or not you are allegedly an American.

One thing has not changed, certainly. You still make statements from authority without providing any reason to consider you an authority. Upon what basis do you allege that science requires a philosophical interpretation? All Judge Jones "outlawed" was teaching non-scientific claims in science classes. You're just making sh*t up as you do along, which is par for the course with you.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

One thing has not changed, certainly. You still make statements from authority without providing any reason to consider you an authority. Upon what basis do you allege that science requires a philosophical interpretation? All Judge Jones "outlawed" was teaching non-scientific claims in science classes. You're just making sh*t up as you do along, which is par for the course with you.

The first year in 'science' class one gets "Philosopy of science'
It is very good at showing you 'science' is actually a religion, and NOT looking for some objective truth. never heard of Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn and others? Maybe read them first before you put stupid commenct on here like the one above.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

1. The precedence this sets in stifling debate (in academia and the community in general) over an issue that historically was a central reason to the founding of our nation and the constitution.It hardly "stifles anything" because colleges still offer courses in th "history o science" where subjects as this are discussed.Here we are in a public forum hving this debate and I know several TV shows that , taking the Creationist side, will present arguments for their POVs.
And as far as the reason the US Constitution was so written was that the wording was PRECISELY chosen regarding the two clauses that are contained within the first Amendment. There is the "Free Expression clause" which protects everyones selection of worship , and then there is the "Establishment clause which lays out the Constitution;s prohibition against the government establishing a "State Religion" >(In the cases of Aguillard and Kitzmiller, the courts decreed that teaching ID and Cretion "Science" are equally religious based forms of"Science", and they are both unique to specifc denominations, the state shall NOT endorse the policy of ID or Cretion "Science" Since both are outgrowths of a more literal basis of Fundamental Christianity.(Even the accredited author of Modern ID had originally peppered his writing with all sorts of Fundamentalist beliefs,a fact that was the reason why the Discovery Institute, early within the time of the Dover case, began slowly changing its logo and stationery symbology , and several of its proponents did a "clean sweep" of removing religious references from their entire "Bill o Fare". They managed to cover their asses pretty well but still left a huge forensic "OOPS" in their book "The Panda's Thumb" which was chosen as a text for ID science. Within that book, the word "Creationism" or "Cretionist" was changed to :Intelligent Designer". However, in the book, the editor taked with the clean up , missed one place where , instead of leaving Intelligent Designer, The book left us with a portmanteau (A word sammich) of "InteliCreationisdesigner" (orsomething to that effect). It was a totally dumb move but left a reasonable mind with the idea that these guys ere not being totally honest in their belief system

2. The historical importance in developing cohesion in local communities as people rallied together in support of like minded values and ethics.

Actually, the Constitution is (at least the way we interpret it), is for the protection of the righst of the people AND the government's role in so doing. weve said before, the first Amendment covers all sorts of unique liberties (like protected speech, activities, rights of assembly, AS WELL AS the freedoms of religion and FROM religion. I think its a pretty good list of freedoms but apparently many people (Including the Cretionists and IDers) seem to feel that they should be given special consideration in showcasing their beliefs.

As set said, IDers have all the rights of anyone else , just not the right to preach their belief under protection of law that governs our public schools. As you see, this is still a much argued interpretation of a right and I hope the more right leaning USSC does NOT cave in its social rulings.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Science requires a philosophical interpretation

Philosophy is often a language without a craft .
Science has NO responsibility like you pose.

Quote:

It is a philosophical interpretation of the information contained in the universe he is outlawing.

I assume youre speaking of Judge Jones. All I can say is that youve abandoned your strict "You are stifling discourse" to now its become a philosophical imperative. I reject that because youre just appearing to duck beneath another umbrella in order to appar to make a valid point.

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know