Why do people deny evolution?

@farmerman,

Quote:

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).

Are you accusing me of medacity. If so point it out please, it is uninteded and I will correct any statements that need to be.

Quote:

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.

So what if he didn't find Jack ****. That's what venture capitalism is all about. There was probably some good theory in his paper. But I will just about guarantee there was some scientific evidence in his paper and we will never know if it was worth anything because the discussion never happened. But, I haven't read it. Don't plan to. There were a lot of news articles portraying him as a thief and maybe he was (he's dead now).

You like to bring up past discrepancies by unrelated people that promoted ID to delegitimize the whole lot. That is guilt by association and is considered a form of bigotry.

Quote:

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 )

Isn't that what you just did to me by comparing my discussion of types of philosophies to Hayseed and the Discovery Institute. I can see that you learn from example.

Quote:

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."

Supporters of the theories, that atoms and molecules coming into existence by purely natural means during the Big Bang, abiogenisis by purely natural means, and macro evolution by purely random introduction of new information is pocked with unfounded assumptions and most disturbing, a systematic back and forth where in one summary they'd claim they were claiming this is "settled science" , and in a later assertion they would say have faith "one day evidence will be provided (beyond the fact we exist) for one of our many possible versions of our theories. But don't expect it to be replicated modeled or explained in a coherent way that a person could "picture" as really happening because qm and relativity are theories of a multiverse and evolution abiogenisis and evolution happened over so vast of time, because the "naturalism only philosophy" science uses is incapable of explaining a multiverse that way (and I have given examples of that) and needs to be explained from a more objective point of view for these reasons:

1. We need a view from inside the atom and the higgs boson when discussing quantum mechanics.

2. We need a view from outside our bodies when discussing relativity

3. The time spans are so far outside the experience of human beings as we currently understand them we need a view from outside of our historical experience to discuss cosmology and biological evolution.

Once we use a more objective view this allows us to view each frame of reference to be discussed in a more Newtonian or Naturalistic point of view.

The problem is, "objective views" assume a "viewer " that can see "objectively" might have existed.

Are you open minded enough to discuss it?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

That is guilt by association and is considered a form of bigotry

sort of like when I accuse your SIDE of mendacity and you claiming Im singling you out?.

The paper was withdrawn by Hayseed when the editors asked for lots of clarifications that could be summarized with "wheres all the facts , evidence, and bases?"
When someone uses Genesis as a science bookm can you even see the problems?

Quote:

So what if he didn't find Jack ****. That's what venture capitalism is all about

Really? prospectii usually set the loss expectation and bases for the invited investment. We do have laws against enabling folks asking for investments in fraudulent projects. You that insensitive or jut that dumb (please pick one)? (Theres a role for you in the Trump White House where "**** the Constitution" and "Everyman for himself" seem to be the principle bumper sticker

Quote:

Supporters of the theories, that atoms and molecules coming into existence by purely natural means during the Big Bang, abiogenisis by purely natural means, and macro evolution by purely random introduction of new information is pocked with unfounded assumptions and most disturbing, a systematic back and forth where in one summary they'd claim they were claiming this is "settled science

Only when cience presented a izable bath of vidence. Your just trying to develop an argumentum ad contrarium, where you accuse another side of crap that your side is guilty of. Its like Trumps assertion that his attendees to his inauguration was the greatest ever (yt w have camera pictures to the obverse). As I said before, whn your tudies are done and you can run up a bunch of evidence that supports your views in biology, maybe youll ee whre youre totally wrong.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

sort of like when I accuse your SIDE of mendacity and you claiming Im singling you out?.

I don't want to exchange ideas from a side with you anymore I want to exchange ideas as individuals. I do not have enough views in common with other people that argue from the ID point of view to join their side (I have to much agreement with you to discuss science them). I no longer want to present a religious view point to you, because it is offensive to you, and you provided a good argument that it could be viewed as unconstitutional by many. I have learned a lot from you, Fresco, Leadfoot, Cicerone, Sentana, etc. . . I had a lot to learn about developing an Interpretation of science using different philosophical interpretations. I am trying to develop a view using as many types of philosophy as I have determined to be necessary to understand as many points of view as I can. (including yours and all the other names I mentioned above. I have come to the conclusion that if I understand the philosophical views of Naturalism, Objective Idealism, Naive realism and Subjective Idealism I will have a pretty good understanding of most people in this debate.

Quote:

Quote:
So what if he didn't find Jack ****. That's what venture capitalism is all about

Really? prospectii usually set the loss expectation and bases for the invited investment. We do have laws against enabling folks asking for investments in fraudulent projects. You that insensitive or jut that dumb (please pick one)?

I own all or part of 6 businesses. Most are making money. One never took off and lost money. Myself and my partners researched that venture before we entered into it. Received some government grants to do a feasability study, and determined the market is not there right now to give us the reward we want for the risk and effort it would take. (But I still have an angle there that we didn't try that I think might surprise everyone involved.) I don't feel like it is possible for anyone to cheat me because I know how to do the research and then put my big boy pants on and make a reasonable decision on whether I should invest or not. But in the end we have laws against fraud. I deal with guys like Trump everyday and have very prosperous relationships most of the time.

Quote:

Only when cience presented a izable bath of vidence. Your just trying to develop an argumentum ad contrarium, where you accuse another side of crap that your side is guilty of. Its like Trumps assertion that his attendees to his inauguration was the greatest ever (yt w have camera pictures to the obverse). As I said before, whn your tudies are done and you can run up a bunch of evidence that supports your views in biology, maybe youll ee whre youre totally wrong.

I am willing to do that. The point is the evidence is already their to support my point of view it just takes a different philosophical approach. The physical evidence for a heliocentric versus and earth centered system looked the same. Naturalism actually better supported an earth centered system before Copernicus came along. Copernicus refused to be held to a purely naturalistic point of view and imagined a more objective point of view from outside our solar system.

That is all I am trying to do. I am trying to use philosophy to get inside Quantum Mechanics and outside of our 5 senses and life spans.

I think science needs another Copernicus right now who can interpret the data using Objective Idealism, Naive Realism , and naturalism. What do you think? Do you think it can be discussed in schools in a constitutionally acceptable way?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

Your religious view is not offensive. Do not try to become Leadfoot and misrepresent what others say. I am a totlly committed advocate of free speech and religious preference. I AM NOT a passive supporter of the fraudulent views of th religious aspects of Creationism (The part that they assert is that Creation Science is science at all), AND ID, which describes itself as non religious based but uses only the arguments that are associated with fundamental religions.
The latest tricks are how the IDers will take a fact from biology , like chromatids that are nuclear bodies mde of DNA/RNA and argenine and lysine bodies called histones , the structure and functions weve known for quite a while, but now, with the revealing of possible neo Lmarkian funtion, IDers are touting this as "the end of Evolution" as it , like soft tissue in dinodaurs , MUST be representative of an intelligence in charge. THATS THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE ID STYLE OF ANALYSIS, (ie, "it complx so it MUST be designed).
The IDers in chrge of writing their case, hve failed to bring up the point that histons and chromatids in general hve apparently evolved through the simples of life like archea (where histones and chhromatids dont exist becuse prokaryotes dont have nucleii (home of your entire genome slapped together by chromatids and held like a book. The There are about 5 different flavors of Chromtids , each apparently showing some evolutionary change.
YET, even now, we are trying to understnd how epigenesis and genes and chromatids and pH /Eh all fit together vi scientific experimenttion.
HOWVER, the IDers from the Discovery Institute have created a "magic bus" of xplanation with a BS assertion that histones mean Intelligence.

Ya See BJ, I dont want kids being taught religious BULLSHIT that is making believe its based on science when the authors of the ID movement have been consistently fraudulent and quick to "make up a story" when the reserch iwnt even fully in(nd what there is DOES NOT support ID as LF and you frequently confess and believe)

By our Contitution, You are free to believe in whatever you need to make your life meaningful, and I support your right at the top of my voice. However,If you wish to teach biology in a PUBLIC CHOOL just make sure that its all fact based and tested somewhat and is not a quick assertion revolving around your above mentioned faith. THAT is forbidden "Teach"-speech in PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Apparently youre too dense to understand that simple point derived from Amendment 1
Your analysis of our Constitution and your views about the Dover decision are really laughable because you dont really challenge the basis of the issue, you speak mostly in irrelevant asides about sub-atomic particles, and most lately irrelevant philosophy ,just to hide a degree of ignorance about the issues at hand, denial of evolution as a fact based science.
SO, I dont think we have anything else to discuss. Youre really not here to do anything but promote ID without any relevant evidence. Im tired of your defensive asides and inabilities to compile any good evidence based arguments and , instead, blame ME for being the fatuous one, and claiming that Im the one who is avoiding discussing "issues " with you.
You know that is BS and youre just unarmed . even your discussions about DOVER have been silly stuff that youve mostly pulled out of your ass.

The only other person Ive said this to Is gungasnake, but BJ, "youve no idea in hell about what youre talking about"

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I own all or part of 6 businesses. Most are making money. One never took off and lost money. Myself and my partners researched that venture before we entered into it

Really?? SO the issue of using Creation Science to explore for oil makes perfect sense to you??

Quote:

The point is the evidence is already their to support my point of view it just takes a different philosophical approach

Why then hve you spent all your time trying to sound like a pompous 1st year physics student, If youve got real evidence (I till recall you were gonna how us all your "math" and it was Olivier who asked you to also how your "work" . You just ignored your own assertion about ll this vidence and math youve got at hand.

Quote:

I think science needs another Copernicus right now who can interpret the data using Objective Idealism, Naive Realism , and naturalism. What do you think?

See what I mean, you obviously dont know anything about the very subject at hand so youll soon start talking about how we keep score in Rugby.
Im sick of you wrapping up your bullshit in bacon and calling it pate'
Im done, I dont want to sound too angry at this waste of time.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

the Lawyers from the defense, spent their time mostly trying to dispute science and evolution.

[emphasis mine]

Glad you made the distinction. But they did not dispute science.
As you have previously mentioned, when the prosecution worded questions in such a way that the witness had to admit that he believed 'God' could have been the designer, that was enough for the judge to discount anything he said as - 'Religion'.

That's where this thread's debate ended awhile back too.
(even though this is not a courtroom, just assholes talking on the interzone)

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

See what I mean, you obviously dont know anything about the very subject at hand so youll soon start talking about how we keep score in Rugby.
Im sick of you wrapping up your bullshit in bacon and calling it pate'
Im done, I dont want to sound too angry at this waste of time.

The subject was philosophical points of view not math. Copernicus visualized a heliocentric universe before he did the math. That was a more objective point of view than the purely naturalistic five senses point of view of science and religion at the time. (Though the Earth does "appear" to be near the center of the "known" universe according to current science so maybe the Church of Copernicus's time was right after all. They just didn't understand that there is a point of view from the Earth, a point of view from the solar system, and a point of view from the universe.). It appears that people have been mixing up philosophical points of view when it came to interpreting science for centuries.

The math of quantum mechanics is definitely to complex to talk about hear, but it can be converted to simpler Newtonian physics and geometry if you visualize what a higgs boson and a hydrogen atom looks like and use newtonian physics to solve for the fine structure constant. This will be an estimation because Newtonian physics cannot account for the permittivity and permeability of free space but it will be close enough to determine the underlying structure. (Now that I understand all this (thanks to your conversation) I will provide it is clearly and concisely as I can using Newtonian Physics.)

I appreciate you putting up with more poor communication skills. My gift is the ability to easily shift and combine philosophical points of view so a complete picture of the system can be visualized.

Your refusal to even view it as a system of information that is operating for a purpose (by using naturalism and naive realism) and then using your imagination to develop a more objective point of view (objective idealism) is greatly hindering your understanding.

I think you are frustrated because struggle to adjust your philosophical point of view to the one that best suits the situation. It appears to me, that you are letting a fear of "discovering a possible need for designer", from letting you use naive realism and objective idealism as philosophies to use alongside the philosophies of secularism, naturalism, and materialism that you appear to be much more comfortable with.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

BS, I was there when Dr Behe gqve his lectures on how evolution was flawed because of (his words) of the obviousness of Irreducible Complexity. Which he explained.
Judge Jones summarized the testimony, you ned the trancripts to see what was said on both sides. To me"disputing science" is trying to expand on the Flaws in Darwin.(To which I think Ive mentioned several times about the flaws nd areas he missed). That, however was NOT what the Law center's areas of flaws. Hell, even Dr Behe, their top science witness, advised the court that the "Supernatural" will be included within realms of science (I assume he was drawing toward a discussion of evolution with the "Design in mind".
Also, before the Thomas More lawcenter crew cut off an answer, One of the experts for ID presented opinions about their "Doubts about the credibility of Darwin",nd in cross it was brought out that mot of these dissenters of Darwin were non biological cientists. So their appeal to their"own authority" left em hanging because their point of reference was sent back for clarification and "real" validation.

It was a law suit BAsed on a sides miscasting of what science is. It was more focused than the testimony in Copes because the JUDGE drew testimony from both ides nd hi references in his decision about "breathless inanity" was mostly about the Science tht the More Center presented.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

when the prosecution worded questions in such a way that the witness had to admit that he believed 'God' could have been the designer

You do understand that the questions you just mentioned were in CROSS EXAMINATION??, The Defense already made their case under direct testimony .THUS they had already presented their view of SCIENCE that was behind their view of evolution.
They should hqve been able to "rehearse " that whole spiehl because because everybody had copies of what every side wa going to present (We operate under a system of pre-discovery and pre trial deposition, (I believe Im correct on that, but weve got several lawyers on the board who can chasten my understanding of evil-lotion ).
Ive alway been told that a lawyer never asks a question unless
it already knows the answer.
YES, the case was kinda incompetent but that was totally in the hands of the attornies who must have trusted inthe veracity of their experts.

However, based on Jones focused opinion , noone, nowhere, has since, seen fit to take up the cudgels and fight the good fight to teach ID in public schools.
The introduction of the Louiwin Wcience Eucation Act, passed in 2010, is aboout as close a your side has gotten and Im sure someon will chllenge tht after the Jindhal and Trump years are only a bad memory.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

…. YES, the case was kinda incompetent but that was totally in the hands of the attornies who must have trusted inthe veracity of their experts.

Yeah, I know the trial rules about as well as you do.
We agree about the stupidity of the case. My point is that the expert witnesses we are talking about advised the school board that this was a bad idea and they did not agree with their policies as written. But they do believe there is an unjust bias against any questioning of Evolution. On that basis they agreed reluctantly to testify for the defense.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

wow, talk about some considered revisionism. All of what you speak of occured AFTER discoveries and AFTER depositions were taken.

"Biased toward evolution eh"?? How about realizing that they were more ANTI-CONSTITUTION??
I love the way many of you guys have spent the last 13 years rewriting the history of the case. Ive read most of what the DI has used as its basis of its "change of heart" midway through the case. Lets say that only you guys buy it !

Could it be that, halfway through depositions the DI realized that they really were "guilty of establishment of a religion"??

So they offered up the"new guy" Michael Behe and a bunch of guys whose creds were already well known.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Nothing there worthy of the keystrokes.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Well, I just didn't want to sound too rude so I answered you despite your vain assertions .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

that was funny

0 Replies

Large numbers of scientists now stating that evolution is a bunch of bullshit:

https://www.wnd.com/2019/02/1000-scientists-go-public-with-doubts-on-evolution/

1 Reply

World Net Dailty . . . ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

The Southern Poverty Law Center lists World Net Daily as an extremist, anti-government group. They regularly publish bullsh*t from the Discovery Institute. Anyone familiar with Gunga's "contribution" here will not be surprised.

0 Replies

Setanta... HAAAAA hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah......

SPLC doesn't know **** about science.

0 Replies

Neither does World Net Daily . . . but the conspiracy nuts love it, huh?

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

The Discovery Institute is the SOURCE of that entire Segment about "Scientists doubting Darwin".

LAst year it was a "convention" of all kinds of relatively unconnected scientists from all over .They met in IStanbul and the whole thing was convened by Harun Yaya, aho is asily recognized as one of the biggest Creationist frauds.
Its anpther "appeal by the religious Funamentalists"

0 Replies

I notice that the facts are not being challenged, only the source.

This is the tactic of people with an illegitimate agenda and whose only weapon is diversion.

4 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know