Why do people deny evolution?

There is none so blind as those who wil not see. Like the anti-evolutionists.

More irony.

The point is that the arguments and theories (most of which are legitimate) are not arguments against ID as you seem to think. ID recognizes that there is a pattern and evidence with evolution, it just does not disprove the alternate theory of ID.

But if you, ros, Edgar and anyone else want to talk theology instead, **** it, let's go.

Edgar asks the first logical question - To what purpose? The prevailing theory behind virtually all theologies is that whatever God(s) they recognized, wanted the best for his or her people in the long run, even if it was shite getting there.

For starters, that works for me.

Seems The opposite is true here too.
It is those who are antichrist who are blind right? Like The old me.

Also, I am still curious you thoughts.... if humanity ever does create a marvel of engineering likebacteria, do you suppose there will be some people who will teach their children that it was created in a ‘chemical soup’ Similar to what evolutionism teaches?

Once again you try to misrepresent folks posts. You really are a fraud, you know?

If you pick some evidence that does so, Try to combine it woth a whole lot of data and evidence that , in total, supports your "beliefs"

Your entire worldview is based on life being too complex to have been arrived at by its own devices.

Quote’Your entire worldview is based on life being too complex to have been arrived at by its own devices.’

Yep. This is one of the foundational pillars.
You see, your entire worldview is based on life being simple enough to arrive by its own devices. Which scientific observation and understanding has demonstrated it is not possible or logical.

Care to answer my question? If humanity ever does create a marvel of engineering like bacteria in the lab, Will people like yourself say ‘well, nature, time and chance could also create this design?’ I would love to be there when you make such a statement to the engineers. Just to see the reaction on their faces.
Just a yes or no answer please.

why try? he will never get it. He can't put his brain about it all. Well, one or two braincells is more like it!

Kinda like you, isn't it?

Yeah, I have mentioned it before..., that I never try convincing anyone, because it is not possible. I simply use people as leverage to gain a better understanding of things. (And hope ppl ‘get it’ too of course)
But from my experience, if their hearts have no desire for truth, it will never happen, they will never ‘get it.’
I hope he does one day.

Anybody can "get" your way of thinking. It actually requires no intellect, just slavish beliefs in stories made up by folks eager for answers of our xistence. The fact that none of your stories have changed for over 2000 years means that "truth" isnt high on your list.

Even science has evolved. We now understand things that we never dreamt about just a century ago. The neat thing is that our findings and resulting technologies WORK.. How you folks are able to deny that simple truth is mind boggling.


You guys cn certainly look at your worldview as your "truth", but as soon as you try to mak it the policy of our ed system (like it had been until the 1950's), I will fight you and (because you guys have not yet been able to produce ANY evidence that is fact driven ) WIN.

. NAAH, What you do is stick your fingers in your ears, and yell, "La La La La, I cant her youuuu"

.

clear case of projection! lol

sorry, you too.

Quote’The fact that none of your stories have changed for over 2000 years means that "truth" isnt high on your list.’

Actually, The fact biblical Scripture has not changed testifies to truth. Not like evolutionism, Always changing its stories, As you admit. That is a red flag of a lie and misinformation.
Amazing. How your worldview is in so many ways a mirror image of the truth, an illusion?

Still avoiding the question I see. Don’t worry, I know the answer 😉

I was first! ha ha ha ha ha the stupidity of it all and taken so seriously by some!

If y6ou can't Spell out what I misrepresented, it is you that are the fraud.

SCience has conducted experiments and hunted evidence based on their expectations for specific outcomes based on the predominant theory of evolution. Whenever anyone of those who respect the scientific approach ask you (and ALL others like you), for evidence and for you to discuss how you would test your belief system. You guys have remained amazingly silent on that issue. Since 2007 (when I started it for my own edification), Ive asked several folks, You included LF, hundred of times about ,
" where you'd begin to collect evidence and how would you go about developing such testable expectations for experiments".

Also, the facts that you try to "bend" to fit your belief system always "Stand out" from the cascades of related data that, within Evolutionary theory fit together neatly. In ID/Creationism a fact that you select today (probably from some ID publication) ,NEVER discuss how that piece of data disagrees with whole batches of other data that would cast doubt upon your Worldview.
Your silence on developing an "Intelligent Design Methodology" never pokes its had up. It consistently relies on the tire phrase that "Lifes too complex to have arisen by natural mans, IT MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNED"

If you say something like that, its your responsibility to back it up with some careful analysis, not some snotty summary statements like"the data is all coming together".

You try to demand waay more of science but you give your own side a generous pass.

Since its all its "just so" stories are untestable and you guys would never dare revealing its inconsistencies, anyone can say that.

Which story of Creation should we follow?? They seem to both have major disagreements.



Dont get me wrong, you are amusing, just not too informed.

No sir, it is testable. It is falsifiable.

When the genealogies of Genesis chapter 5 and 11 are followed, there is a clear timeline of approximately 4000 years between the first Adam, and the second Adam, being Christ .
Just as Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 9 make it clear that he created it vegetarian.
Clarity. Simple.

The biblical words are clear, it is humanities words that like to spin the truth, and even ‘ gods people ‘ are guilty of compromising truth for misinformation and false gods, not just in the old testament era, but including the ‘time and chance God’ of evolutionism.

The time and chance God which many many many people believe can create complex biological machinery like bacteria right? Impossible. Illogical. Right?
Despite scientific observation and discovery which has revealed it is impossible for life to be created by non-life.
Maybe 100 years ago, people could have got away with the idea or notion that bacteria is a simple blob, but not now.
.

OK, even if one of your assertions is correct, NONE of them prove anything and certainly ARE NOT falsifiable (other than in your mind).
You have nothing to falsify or experiment with.
You think a "birth timeline" is even verifiable without a deep conviction that what you are reading is correct??
SCience doesnt work that way, when we did, (way back when), we were called "Natural Philosophers"


The firs "scientific fossils" were called Homo deluvii testis , (later to be proven a Mosasaur fossil from the Zechstein Basin).
"viz plastica" was a hypothesis that a God mae all these fossils to fool us.


You are guilty of Biblical Ipsidxitim, where something said in the Bible is proven because its written in the Bible. Thats hardly even worth telling you that you are a fraud whose never going to do the necessary work to support what you read in your book or rules and "history"


Theres so much of what you confess can be seen to be nothing more than fairy tales, like THE FLOOD. Thats the biggest laugh. You guys have a story that you stick to no matter what science has shown by many layers of interlacing evidence.

Like you use the term "Irreducible complexity"?? and then point at flagella of bacteria and other phyla.
Did you know just how man different kinds of flagella there even are? and how many areas of increasing complexity of flagella exist?
It seems that irreducibility does NOT hold water since even flagella can be seen to arise in evolutionary clades.