Why do people deny evolution?

@Leadfoot,

your groups"uncoordinated positions" have been sufficiently disclosed in your post where you seem to be chastising BJ. Remember?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I guess I watced a video about the ark exhibit that was supported by the discovery Institute. If they don't support that do you. I guess I missed understood that. I stand corrected. Do they believe in a 4.5 billion-year-old earth with gradual evolution ?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

your groups"uncoordinated positions" have been sufficiently disclosed in your post where you seem to be chastising BJ. Remember?

Ditto.

Is uncoordinated grounds for expulsion from the scientific discussion?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

The use of "maroon" is a cultural reference which most Americans over tha age of 30 will understand:

The use of "they" was a typographical error, I meant to write "then." That would not be a fig leaf large enough to cover your consistent gaffes in English usage. Once again, I don't believe you actually are an American, certainly not a native-born citizen. At best you would be a naturalized citizen with poor English language skills. But Roswell is correct. You offer nothing but word salads of dimly understood (if understood at all) references to what he once referred to as "sciency" terms, none of which are related to the subject matter.

He is also correct that attempting to talk to you is a waste or time.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Is "uncoordinated" grounds for expulsion from the scientific discussion?

I really think you should be posing this to Leadfoot not me> He seems to be the one whos angry with you. Based on your previous jibber jabber,Im just not very surprised that someone would take roll of your use of terms and facts

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I really liked the Ennio Morricone piece ( The Mission) that followed The Bgs bit.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

I really think you should be posing this to Leadfoot not me> He seems to be the one whos angry with you. Based on your previous jibber jabber,Im just not very surprised that someone would take roll of your use of terms and facts

This is jibber jabber or at least a poor understanding of philosophy.

farmerman

Quote:

1. You assert that with Judge Jones decision, he has effectively "cut off" speculation and (my words) investigations from all corners. I say, TWADDLE--its just the opposite, for you see, lets say Judge Jones found for the Dover SChool board. Tht would, of course opene the science programs to be taught from an ID standpoint. THT would have effectively CLOSED DOWN all sciences based upon the scientific method, based on Methodological Naturalism. ID would then be able to be taught IN ALL SCHOOLS, PUBLIC , PRIVATE AND PAROCHIAL

and

Quote:

So actually , should the school board hve won, science(speciifically biology and paleontology) would be pretty much a waste of our time. Sciences would be the losers and, by law, we would go back to the way it used to be in the US in the early 20th century when Evolution was mostly forbidden to be taught in school science courses.
( I have quite a collection of biollogy text- books that were in use in the early last century, they are mostly
1. stupidly argued
2. Racist in content
3. Valueless in their conclusions
4. Religious based from a Fundamental Christian standpoint (They even denied that sects like Catholics were Christians in several texts)

Assuming every school board or state legislature would be as bigoted as the people with the secular philosophical view only of your brand of science is in itself a prejudicial viewpoint. Secondly has proved it wrong headed because the naturalist scientific method was developed by Christians. And, it works just fine when considering the natural world from a Newtonian point of view. But cosmology and quantum biology are not Newtonian in nature and therefor it is impossible to interprete the data from qm and relativity from a purely Newtonian (naturalistic point of view. The view needs to be more inclusive (using Naturalism, Objective Idealism and Naive Realism if you are a believer in a monotheistic God type Intelligent Designer and if you are in favor of a more emergent naturalistic intelligent designer you would use naturalism and subjective idealism) to interpret science. So by the very nature of ID science it will be more inclusive than your naturalism only point of view of science.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

sounds like jibber jabber is still your forte. Did you post my two submissions to find some inconsistency?? There is none. You jut fail to recognize the fact that, should the Schoolboard have won, science would be the big loser. specifically Natural science. As you know, "Quantum Biology" has yet to show us any evidence.

You still seem to be misreading (or are you bluffing me that youve read anything).
Since you find our Constitution "bigoted" I think were done here till you read Monkey Girl and get served by absorbing Humes argument about the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Morricone is the last great composer of our times.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

sounds like jibber jabber is still your forte. Did you post my two submissions to find some inconsistency?? There is none.

I posted your two submissions because they don't make sense because they don't address the topic of the discussion.

I argued how ID is a more inclusive philosophy than naturalism/secularism. I say this because naturalism is a combination of naturalism (and when it comes to qm) the subjective idealism that fresco uses. While ID uses naturalism, naive realism and Objective Idealism as their main philosophical interpretations.

I am arguing that this debate is a philosophical and not a religious debate. I think the way the Discovery Institute presented it in their literature and in the court case was too religious and not enough philosophy. I am arguing that Jones and you are too close minded about religion because of religion's past crimes, and that it is blocking your ability to understand that Jones just didn't eliminate religion from the scientific debate but also the philosophical interpretations of Objective Idealism and Naive Realism in conjuction with Naturalism from the debate.

I think that our constitution protects those legitimate philosophical points of view for interpreting science, and your's and Jone's narrow interpretation of the constitution is not what the founders intended and is a danger to freedom of expression and academics as we go forth from that decision. One reason I say that is, it makes the scientists the new High Priests of the State endorsed religion of naturalism/secularlism. And because they (the scientific community) cannot easily adjust and use different philosophical points of view, their inability to see and interpret the patterns in the information stored in the atoms and higgs bosons of the universe they are automatically going to be more prejudiced agianst ID and will do everything possible (including excluding philosophical points of view from being published) to protect their high priestly positions in our culture.

So can you comment on the philosophy instead of the religion?

Do you recognize that secularism is a religious point of view with scientists the self appointed high priests?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

whatever , I still read that youre clueless. Good Luck on finding one.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

I haven’t seen the Ark video or the context it was used in but I can only imagine that it was in the context of a critique, because the DI does not support a young earth and to my knowledge does not disagree with the estimated age of 4+ billion years.

0 Replies

Of course, neither religion nor philosophy is the topic of the thread. BJ is just a bullsh*t artist.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Of course, neither religion nor philosophy is the topic of the thread. BJ is just a bullsh*t artist.

Then you should ban evolution here,, because that IS a religion!
Alas, most people assume evil-lotion to be a 'science', but it really is a religion, DISGUISED as 'science'. Once brainwashed people can't see through it.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Youve been here 3 years and still havent learned the basis upon which judicial decisions are made. THEY ARE FOCUSED, not all over the map like you seem to want. If your gonna make believe your American, you should really make an effort to understand problems of US Democracy.

If you stop being so bullheadely obtuse, maybe folks will take you seriously. Are you being home-schooled?? Id really like to talk to your teachers, their ignorance is almost criminal.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Youve been here 3 years and still havent learned the basis upon which judicial decisions are made. THEY ARE FOCUSED, not all over the map like you seem to want. If your gonna make believe your American, you should really make an effort to understand problems of US Democracy.

I come from a culture where we naturally used Objective Idealism and Naive realism along with Naturalism in how we raised our families and educated students. I went to a public school where every teacher and student assumed there was a God because the complexity in nature revealed His existence. We prayed to a Christian God at public events at my public high school and that was only 30 years ago. In the school my children attend they learn things like Roe vs Wade was an illogical interpretation of the constitution and they understand why because they understand the dissenting position.(which is something many liberal supreme court justices would even agree with) Do you understand that dissenting position?

I think that our constitution protects legitimate philosophical points of view for interpreting science, and your's and Jone's narrow interpretation of the constitution is not what the founders intended and is a danger to freedom of expression and academics as we go forward from that decision. One reason I say that is, it makes the scientists the new High Priests of the State endorsed religion of naturalism/secularism. And since they (the scientific community) cannot easily adjust and use different philosophical points of view beyond naturalism, they are unable to see and interpret the patterns (message) in the information stored in the atoms and higgs bosons of the universe, and they are automatically prejudiced against ID and will do everything possible (including excluding philosophical points of view from being published) to protect their high priestly positions in our culture.

So can you comment on the philosophy instead of the religion?

or

Do you recognize that secularism is a religious point of view with scientists the self appointed high priests?

Quote:

If you stop being so bullheadely obtuse, maybe folks will take you seriously. Are you being home-schooled?? Id really like to talk to your teachers, their ignorance is almost criminal.

Or are you to bullheaded or obtuse to discuss those topics.

0 Replies

The Constitution is the basis of the law. If you disagree, change it. o far, noone has challenged the Jones decision, and those states where they sent out feelers to the legislatures to see whether theres a basis for a challenge, ALL the legislatures (including Kansas) have said

Naaah.

Summing it up--we all have an equal amount of free speech and your speech (in this case religion) Must not interfere with mine. Still dont get it??.

Remember, in this nation, until after the Butler Laws and years after the SCopes trial, it was mostly illegal to teach evolution at all in the public schools (and the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment
wasnt fully tested ).

Quote:

your's and Jone's narrow interpretation of the constitution is not what the founders intended and is a danger to freedom of expression and academics as we go forward from that decision.

You are really full of ****, ya know that??

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Summing it up--we all have an equal amount of free speech and your speech (in this case religion) Must not interfere with mine. Still dont get it??.

I guess you are incapable of talking about, or even learning about philosophy. (Like when you thought I made up Objective Idealism and never commented again about it).

Do you think Objective Idealism and Naive Realism along with naturalism could give a more comprehensive interpretation of physics than naturalism alone?

I might be full of **** but at least I can explain my position somewhat anyway.

Quote:

Remember, in this nation, until after the Butler Laws and years after the SCopes trial, it was mostly illegal to teach evolution at all in the public schools (and the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment
wasnt fully tested ).

But now it is tested which makes me wonder why the worry over teaching ID as a philosophical rather than religious interpretation alongside naturalism?

Scientific research should not be led by people in fear of the debate.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

I gave up on Descarte when I compared what an AA tells me v WET chem method that allowed me to sense colors

SO far not. EG we sense illusions , do you try to understand them or just accept what they are displaying.
In my work, the philosophers show up AFTER the work is already long over with. ITs not that I hve no use for em, its just I havent found I needed em.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Scientific research should not be led by people in fear of the debate

I think you are giving yourself undeserved credit for the way people in science, while first trying to be polite with guy like you, they soon lose patience at all the Density and mendacity (WHOLE LOTTA MENDACITY GOIN AROUND ON YOUR SIDE SKIPPY).

EG
There was once a Creationist geologist,----- an oil explorationist , named Hayseed Stevens who(like many religiou con men) convinced many investors that his reliance upon Biblical Flood Geology will reward them with riches from drilling for oil bsed on his research on the pools left after the Noahdic FLOOD. Trouble with him is that he actually BELIEVED his own BS and so, he spent their money on drilling. Of Course he didnt find jack **** and the investors lost their money and they had no recourse because everybody, including Hayseed ws certain they knew something when they were just too ignorant of petroleum geology. Hayseed tried to have a paper pub'd in AAPG and was turned down. He then spouted out much the same crap as you (That science was afraid of debating him, when, someone who knew his beans would have merely warned investors that this guy was parading his religion as valid science.

Another point,----- I spent a few days attending the Dover trial and I noted one thing in an article for some attornies that . "For some reason, unknown to me, the Lawyers from the defense, spent their time mostly trying to dispute science and evolution."(and I gave some examples )" Their entire case was pocked with faulty assumptions, very poor evidence, and most disturbing, a systematic back and forth where in one summary theyd claim they were entirely science centered , and in a later assertion they would quote Dembski who professed his belief that all science must be centered on Christianity."

In ffear of the debate??? you really believe that?? Oh well, I dream of buying an island near Prince of Wales and raising bears.

2 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know